3.16 TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING

Transcription

1 3.16 TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING This section describes the transportation impact analysis conducted for the project and identifies potentially significant impacts and related mitigation to reduce or minimize those impacts. Because there are no land use changes proposed within Russell Ranch as part of the 2018 LRDP that could result in physical impacts related to transportation, this analysis (including modeling and mapping) focuses on the central, west, and south campuses of. Potential impacts are evaluated for the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit components of the overall transportation system. Comments received on the NOP raised concerns regarding potential increases in congestion on the adjacent roadway network, primarily within the City of Davis. Other concerns included adequate provision of alternative transportation infrastructure, including bicycle, pedestrian, and bus facilities Regulatory Setting FEDERAL There are no federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to transportation that would affect the project. However, federal regulations relating to the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VI, and Environmental Justice relate to transit service. STATE California Department of Transportation The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the State Highway System (SHS). Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the SHS within the study area would need to be approved by Caltrans. Caltrans Local Development Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance (Caltrans 2016) provides guidance on the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The document outlines when a traffic impact study is needed and what should be included in the scope of the study. Within the study area, Caltrans has developed the following plans and studies that set expectations for the performance of Interstate 80 (I-80) and State Route (SR) 113. Yolo County District System Management and Development Plan, Caltrans District 3 (Caltrans January 25, 2013). Interstate 80 and Capital City Freeway Corridor System Management Plan (Caltrans May 2009). Transportation Concept Report Interstate 80, District 3 (Caltrans August 4, 2017). Transportation Concept Report State Route 113, District 3 (Caltrans July 24, 2014). Interstate 80/United States 50 Davis to Downtown Sacramento Preliminary Investigation (Caltrans June 2014). I-80/Richards Blvd Interchange Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR- PDS) (Caltrans April 5, 2017). Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

2 Solano County Caltrans District 4 Transportation System Development Plan (Caltrans December 1, 2011). I-80 East Corridor System Management Plan District 4 (Caltrans June 2017). Senate Bill 743 Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013, requires the California Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any. OPR recommended changes to the CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 and proposes that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. Certification of these revisions to the Guidelines by the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency will trigger requirements for their use by lead agencies (Public Resources Code section 21099(b)(2)). As this is a substantive change to CEQA practice, there has been considerable statewide interest and comment on OPR s recommendations, the final version of which, was submitted to the Resources Agency in November 2017 (Governor s Office of Planning and Research 2017). Formal certification of the new Guidelines is anticipated in As currently drafted, the Guidelines can be implemented immediately by adoption of a VMT standard by a lead agency but will not be mandated until January 1, The University of California,, and the surrounding jurisdictions (City of Davis, Yolo County, Solano County) have not established any standards or thresholds on VMT. Therefore, the new VMT guidelines have not yet been adopted and are not in effect at this time. Accordingly, this EIR discloses the project s effects on VMT in this chapter on transportation impacts for information purposes only since no significance determination is required by law. Potential significance findings for specific environmental effects that relate to VMT are found in the energy, air quality, and greenhouse sections of the document. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA The University of California Sustainable Practices Policy The University of California (UC) established a Sustainable Practices Policy (University of California Office of the President June 2016) effective June 2, 2017 that applies to all campuses and contains the following goals related to reducing vehicle travel. The University recognizes that single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting is a primary contributor to commute GHG emissions and localized transportation impacts. A. By 2025, each location shall strive to reduce its percentage of employees and students commuting by SOV by 10 percent relative to its 2015 SOV commute rates. B. By 2050, each location shall strive to have no more 40 percent of its employees and no more than 30 percent of all employees and students commuting to the location by SOV. Each location (campus) will develop a business-case analysis for any proposed parking structures serving University affiliates or visitors to campus to document how a capital investment in parking aligns with each campus Climate Action Plans and/or sustainable transportation policies. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

3 Long Range Development Plan The 2018 LRDP ( 2018) includes the following relevant policies related to streetscapes, roadways, and parking resources on and surrounding the campus. Foster A Healthier Transportation Ecosystem - Enhance and expand travel services and programs to meet the daily mobility needs of the campus community and create a healthier transportation ecosystem; promote more sustainable travel choices to improve health of the individual, the environment and the institution. Expand Active Transportation Infrastructure - Expand campus infrastructure to support active transportation; improve safety for both bicyclists and pedestrians; consider roadway intersection reconfigurations to minimize distance of crosswalks; consider roadway reconfiguration to reduce vehicle speed; clearly articulate the transitional spaces between bicycle oriented core campus and the public streets on the periphery. Enhance Transit Service - Preserve and enhance transit service; continue to prioritize and improve transit access to the core campus area; consider improvements to the Hutchison Drive corridor for Unitrans buses and for safely mixing buses, bikes and pedestrians. Preserve Future Roadway Corridors - Anticipate potential alignments for future campus roadways and bikeways beyond the life of the plan; keep buildings clear of potential roadway and bikeway corridors. Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction - Per the University of California Sustainable Practices Policy, strive to reduce the percentage of employees and students commuting by single occupancy vehicles (SOV) in 2025 by 10 percent relative to SOV commute rate. By 2050, strive to have no more than 40 percent of employees and no more than 30 percent of all employees and students commuting by SOV. Vehicle Miles Traveled Objective - Avoid growth in the vehicles miles traveled (VMT) that would exceed the VMT forecasts for the SACOG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Campus Vehicle Traffic Operations - Allow vehicle level of service (LOS) F conditions during typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours as measured by the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). The allowance of LOS F conditions recognizes that the campus does not plan to expand the roadway system with the exception of modifications for safety, way finding or to better accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, or transit use. Off-Campus Vehicle Traffic Operations - Use local, regional, and state agency expectations about performance of the roadway network when analyzing potential impacts caused by operation or expansion of the campus. For environmental impact review purposes, specific performance metrics and thresholds for impact significance should be based on the plans and policies of the affected agency unless federal or state law requires otherwise. Similar to campus expectations, projects that increase delay by more than 10 percent at an intersection with unacceptable or LOS F operations may constitute significant impacts. Invest In Programs Before Parking - Invest in transportation programs before constructing additional parking infrastructure; offer programs and services that promote more sustainable travel choices and minimize impacts to overall parking supply; balance adequate parking supply with the campus objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Promote Ride Sharing - Promote carpools and vanpools as viable transportation options that reduce parking demand for the campus community; monitor the utilization of ride-hailing services and proactively manage campus circulation network to promote walking, biking and busing as preferred travel modes. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

4 Park On The Periphery - Provide parking on the periphery of the core campus; consider a remote park and bike facility on Old Davis Road with secure bicycling parking; locate parking for large public events near State Route 113 and Interstate 80. Foster Flexibility - Foster a flexible and adaptive approach to the management of parking infrastructure; explore new and innovative technologies to aid in the management of parking; routinely evaluate and dynamically modify parking policy to align with sustainability goals; consider the formal designation of areas for ride-hailing pick up and drop off; build parking lots rather than parking structures. The 2018 LRDP would revise the University s expectations for roadway network performance by establishing a new LOS policy. The proposed policy would change the minimum acceptable peak hour delay experienced by drivers on roadways from LOS D to LOS F. Maintaining a peak hour threshold of LOS D would minimize delay for drivers but potentially create the need to expand the roadway network or allocate green time at signals for drivers. Either modification to the roadway network could create conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists by creating longer crossing distances or wait times at intersections. Moreover, a larger roadway network footprint would create higher costs for roadway operations and maintenance. Establishing a peak hour threshold of LOS F would increase the delay experienced by drivers but support policies related to transportation demand management, sustainability, and greenhouse gas reduction established in the 2018 LRDP, including promoting bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel and maintaining the existing footprint of the campus roadway system. Traffic and Parking Code The Traffic and Parking Code ( Transportation and Parking Services February 2018) includes provisions that promote the safe and orderly movement of traffic on the campus. The code supplements the provisions identified in the California Vehicle Code to establish the rules of the road for the campus. Rules and standards included in the code pertain to vehicle, bicycle, and other wheeled device operations and parking, as well as emergency vehicle access on the campus. The code also serves as the enforcement mechanism for the UC Davis Center Core Area Access Management Policy, which restricts private vehicle access to the campus core area to reduce vehicular traffic, restrict movement during class break, reduce the potential of accidents, encourage alternative transportation, and restrict parking within the campus core area. Bicycle Plan The Bicycle Plan ( Transportation and Parking Services 2011) serves as a guide for the continuing improvement and encouragement of bicycling as a significant mode of transportation to, from, and on the campus. The plan describes existing policies and facilities related to campus bicycling and includes a list of projects and programs intended to improve the cycling environment in the future. LOCAL As noted in Section 3.0.2, University of California Autonomy,, a constitutionally created State entity, is not subject to municipal regulations of surrounding local governments for uses on property owned or controlled by that are in furtherance of the university s education purposes. However, may consider, for coordination purposes, aspects of local plans and policies for the communities surrounding the campus when it is appropriate and feasible, but it is not bound by those plans and policies in its planning efforts. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

5 Sacramento Area Council of Governments The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) governing the six county Sacramento region consisting of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties and their 22 cities. SACOG is responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the regional transportation plan/sustainable communities strategy (RTP/SCS) and the associated Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). SACOG refers to the RTP and RTIP as the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SACOG February 18, 2016) is the current MTP/SCS. As such, it provides the basis for air quality conformity findings related to the national Clean Air Act and determinations of whether the region is complying with greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks established under California s Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). Major projects that are inconsistent with the plan could jeopardize the plan s effectiveness for air pollution and GHG reduction. Consequently, consistency with the MTP/SCS is a potential basis for determining adverse impacts related to these environmental topics. Metropolitan Transportation Commission The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. Similar to SACOG, MTC has responsibility for preparing an RTP/SCS and associated RTIP. The current RTP/SCS for MTC is the Plan Bay Area 2040 (Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments July 26, 2017). This document is referenced here because the project study area includes portions of Solano County. City of Davis General Plan The City of Davis General Plan Transportation Element (City of Davis December 2013) was updated in The following goals and policies related to transportation and circulation relate to transportation conditions in the 2018 LRDP study area. Policy TRANS 1.8: Develop and maintain a work trip-reduction program designed to reduce carbon emissions, criteria pollutants, and local traffic congestion. Standard a. New development areas shall reduce vehicle trips generated by their developments. Developers shall mitigate significant adverse traffic impacts upon existing development to reduce the impacts to less-than-significant levels, unless the city finds that full mitigations are incompatible with the surrounding environment. Collaborate with the University to ensure that the City and University Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs are implemented to minimize traffic demand on city streets. Policy TRANS 2.1: Provide Complete Streets to meet the needs of drivers, public transportation vehicles and riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities in all transportation planning, programming, design, construction, reconstruction, retrofit, operations, and maintenance activities and products. The City shall view all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in Davis, and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, fixed-route transit, and demand-response para transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system along with motor vehicles. Standard d. The following Levels of Service (LOS) are acceptable for automobiles for major intersections: LOS D or better is acceptable during non-peak traffic hours. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

6 LOS E or better is acceptable during peak traffic hours. LOS F is acceptable during peak traffic hours in the Core Area and Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive area. LOS F is acceptable during peak traffic hours in other areas if approved by City Council. Policy TRANS 2.4: As part of the initial project review for any new project, a project-specific traffic study may be required. Studies shall identify impacted transportation modes and recommend mitigation measures designed to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels. The following additional policies may be applicable to potential mitigation measures identified in this analysis. Policy TRANS 2.2: Implement state-of-the-art street design solutions to improve bicycle/pedestrian access, comfort, and safety that may include: Bicycle boxes at intersections, Cycletracks, Shared lane markings (sharrows), Contraflow bicycle lanes, Improved bicycle detection at intersections, Two-stage turn queue boxes, Colored bicycle lanes, Bicycle route wayfinding. Policy TRANS 2.7: Minimize impacts of vehicle traffic on local streets to maintain or enhance livability of the neighborhoods. Consider traffic calming measures along collector and minor arterial streets, where appropriate and feasible, to slow speeds. Other City of Davis policy documents that were evaluated for the regulatory setting included the City of Davis Bicycle Action Plan Beyond Platinum (2014). No additional policies from this document were identified as potentially applicable to this project. Yolo County General Plan The Yolo County General Plan Transportation Element (Yolo County 2009) was updated in The following goals and policies related to transportation and circulation relate to transportation conditions in the 2018 LRDP study area. Policy CI-3.1: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) C or better for roadways and intersections in the unincorporated county. In no case shall land use be approved that would either result in worse than LOS C conditions, or require additional improvements to maintain the required level of service, except as specified below. The intent of this policy is to consider level of service as a limit on the planned capacity of the County s roadways. Interstate 5 (Woodland City Limit to Sacramento County Line) LOS F is acceptable to the County. The County will secure a fair share towards intersection improvements from all feasible sources including planned development at the Elkhorn site. LOS C is anticipated by Caltrans according to the State Route 99 and Interstate 5 Corridor System Management Plan (Caltrans, May 2009). Interstate 80 (Davis City Limit to West Sacramento City Limit) LOS F is acceptable to the County. LOS F is anticipated by Caltrans according to the Interstate 80 and Capital City Freeway Corridor System Management Plan (Caltrans, May 2009). The following additional policies may be applicable to potential mitigation measures identified in this analysis. Policy CI-2.1: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway space by all users, including automobiles, trucks, alternative energy vehicles, agricultural equipment, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians, as appropriate to the road classification and surrounding land uses. Policy CI-3.3: CEQA review for subsequent projects will analyze project traffic and circulation impacts using both the Yolo County General Plan policies and Caltrans policies (based on the CSMPs, TCCRs, or other guidelines) as applicable. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

7 Consider the following objectives when making decisions to expand the County road system in Yolo County: Minimize impacts to the environment. Promote designs that result in a decrease of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Promote designs that decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and long-distance commute trips. Fully utilize existing capacity in accordance with adopted Levels of Service. Provide facilities for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, carpool users and transit riders, where appropriate. Policy CI-3.9: To the greatest feasible extent, require new development to construct safety improvements consistent with current design standards on existing roadways that are anticipated to accommodate additional traffic from planned development. Policy CI-3.11: Require new development to finance and construct all off-site circulation improvements necessary to mitigate a project s transportation impacts (including public transit, pedestrian and bicycle mobility, safety and level of service-related impacts, and impacts to the State Highway System). For mitigation to be considered feasible, it must be consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Yolo County Congestion Management Plan Congestion management programs were established in California in As part of the programs, the implementing agency develops a congestion management plan (CMP) as a mobility monitoring and planning tool. Typically, the CMPs complement regional planning for the RTP/SCS by identifying potential mobility needs. The Yolo County Congestion Management Plan (YCCMP) was last adopted by the Yolo County Transportation Authority (YCTA) in 1996 and has not been modified since despite state requirements for ongoing updates. The YCMP includes specific LOS expectations for the regional roadway network. Relevant LOS values within the project study area are listed below. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for I-80 and its associated interchanges between the Solano County limit and Mace Boulevard Olive Drive. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for SR 113 and its associated interchanges within the Davis city limits. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for Russell Boulevard between SR 113 and B Street. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for Richards Boulevard between First Street and I-80. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for First Street between B Street and Richards Boulevard. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for B Street between First Street and 5th Street. Solano County Congestion Management Plan The Solano County Congestion Management Plan (SCCMP) was adopted by the Solano Transportation Authority in 2015 and established a LOS E expectation for I-80 near the Yolo County border (Solano County 2015). Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

8 Environmental Setting The main campus is located immediately southwest of the City of Davis city limits. The majority of on-campus residential, academic, and research functions are concentrated within the central campus area generally bounded by Russell Boulevard on the north, SR 113 on the west, I-80 on the south, and downtown Davis on the east. West Village is a residential area outside of the central campus and is located on the west campus, north of Hutchison Drive and west of SR 113. Additional campus functions (e.g., West Village, the University Airport) extend west of SR 113 and south of I-80 beyond the central campus boundaries. ROADWAY SYSTEM Local vehicular access to and from the main campus is primarily available via six campus gateways including La Rue Road, California Avenue, Howard Way, First Street, Old Davis Road, and Hutchison Drive. Old Davis Road provides direct access to I-80 and Hutchison Drive provides direct access to SR 113, while the remaining gateways connect to the local roadway network serving the City of Davis. Circulation around the campus is provided by La Rue Road, Hutchison Drive, and Old Davis Road. Together, La Rue Road and Old Davis Road along with A Street and Russell Boulevard form a loop roadway serving campus destinations. Within the core area of the central campus, roadways are restricted to transit vehicles, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Descriptions of the regional and local roadways serving the campus are provided below. Regional Roadways Regional access to the campus is provided by I-80 and SR 113. Local freeway access is available at the I-80 interchanges at Richards Boulevard and Old Davis Road and at the SR 113 interchanges at Hutchison Drive and Russell Boulevard. I-80 is a freeway that extends from the San Francisco Bay Area east through Davis towards Sacramento and the Sierra Nevada. I-80 is three to four lanes per direction in the vicinity of the UC Davis campus and carries approximately 132,000 vehicles per day, based on data provided by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2015). The speed limit on I-80 is 65 miles per hour (mph). Its primary access to the campus is at the Old Davis Road interchange, which serves as the southern campus gateway. East of Old Davis Road, the Richards Boulevard interchange also provides access to the campus through downtown Davis. SR 113 is a north-south state highway that runs through west Davis, connecting I-80 to Woodland and other cities to the north of Davis. SR 113 continues south of I-80 in Dixon, terminating at SR 12 in Rio Vista. SR 113 provides two travel lanes per direction and the facility carries approximately 40,800 vehicles a day, based on data provided by Caltrans (Caltrans 2015). The speed limit on SR 113 is 65 mph. Its primary access to is at the Hutchison Drive interchange, which serves as the western campus gateway. Campus access is also available at the Russell Boulevard interchange immediately north of the Hutchison Drive interchange. Local Roadways La Rue Road forms the western portion of the campus loop roadway between Russell Boulevard and Old Davis Road. At Russell Boulevard, La Rue Road serves as one of the six central campus gateways, serving approximately 23 percent of daily vehicle trips to the central campus (Fehr & Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

9 Peers 2016). La Rue Road is four lanes between Russell Boulevard and Garrod Drive and two lanes between Garrod Drive and Old Davis Road. La Rue Road becomes Anderson Road north of Russell Boulevard and provides access to the central and northern areas of the City of Davis. Hutchison Drive is the western campus gateway, serving approximately 28 percent of daily vehicle trips to the central campus (Fehr & Peers 2016). Hutchison Drive provides one of two on-campus access points to the regional freeway system, serving SR 113 trips traveling west to West Village and east to the central campus area. Hutchison Drive is four lanes between Sage Street and Bioletti Way and two lanes east of Bioletti Way as it enters the core campus area. Within the core campus, Hutchison Drive is restricted to transit vehicles, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Access to Hutchison Drive is also available on the eastern edge of campus from Old Davis Road. Several bus routes utilize Hutchison Drive to access the Silo transit terminal. West of campus, Hutchison Drive is two lanes between Sage Street and County Road 98. Old Davis Road is a two-lane roadway serving the southern portion of campus. From First Street, Old Davis Road meanders along the southern edge of Putah Creek, past the Mondavi Center, and south underneath I-80. Old Davis Road is one of two on-campus access points to the regional freeway system, serving I-80 trips traveling north towards the central campus and south towards the UC Davis south campus district. Old Davis Road includes two campus gateways, accommodating approximately 17 percent and 13 percent of daily vehicle trips to the central campus from its southern and eastern gateways, respectively (Fehr & Peers 2016). Russell Boulevard is a two- to four-lane east-west arterial extending from County Road 32 towards the east where it becomes Fifth Street in the City of Davis. Russell Boulevard forms the northern edge of the campus, demarcating the north edge of the campus from the adjoining City of Davis. Within the vicinity of campus, Russell Boulevard is four lanes. Several vehicular and active transportation campus access points are available along Russell Boulevard. Regional freeway access is available at the Russell Boulevard/SR 113 interchange. Howard Way is one of the northern campus gateways, serving approximately 12 percent of daily vehicle trips to the central campus (Fehr & Peers 2016). Howard Way is a two-lane roadway that provides vehicular access to the North Entry Parking Structure and transit access to the Memorial Union transit terminal. North of Russell Boulevard, Howard Way becomes College Park in the City of Davis. California Avenue is one of the northern campus gateways, serving approximately seven percent of daily vehicle trips to the central campus (Fehr & Peers 2016). California Avenue is a two-lane roadway providing access between Russell Boulevard and the core campus. South of North Quad, California Avenue is restricted to campus service vehicles, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Sage Street is a two-lane roadway serving the West Village area west of SR 113. Sage Street extends from Hutchison Drive northward into West Village. A Street is a two-lane roadway forming the eastern portion of the campus loop roadway between Russell Boulevard and Old Davis Road. A Street is one lane northbound between First Street and Russell Boulevard and becomes a two-way roadway again north of Russell Boulevard where it continues into the City of Davis. A Street serves as the boundary between the eastern edge of the UC Davis campus and downtown Davis. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

10 First Street is a two-lane east-west arterial providing access between the campus at A Street and downtown Davis. West of A Street, First Street becomes Shields Avenue on the core campus, and is restricted to campus and emergency vehicles. First Street also serves the Aggie Village residential development located on the south side of the roadway at C Street. Richards Boulevard is an arterial providing access between south Davis, I-80, and downtown Davis. Richards Boulevard is primarily four lanes, with a narrower two-lane under-crossing at the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge north of the I-80 interchange. Richards Boulevard provides access to First Street, which extends to the west and into the campus as Shields Avenue. Hopkins Road is a two-lane roadway in the west campus extending south from Hutchison Drive. Hopkins Road provides access to the University Airport, research facilities, and the agricultural uses in the west campus. County Road 98 is a two-lane north-south roadway in the west campus. North of, Country Road 98 continues into the City of Woodland. South of the campus, the roadway crosses Putah Creek and continues into Solano County where it becomes Pedrick Road and provides access to I-80 at the Pedrick Road/I-80 interchange. ANALYSIS LOCATIONS The study area encompasses the roadway network on and within the immediate vicinity of the UC Davis campus extending into the City of Davis and portions of Solano and Yolo counties. Regional roadways included in the impact analysis are the portions of I-80 and SR 113 that extend through the study area while specific local roadways and intersections are listed below. Exhibit shows the freeway study segments, the 49 study intersections, and 30 local study roadway segments. Tables and list the study intersections and study local roadway segments, respectively. Study locations were selected based on the projected distribution of project traffic, with the intent to capture roadway locations that would serve substantial traffic associated with the 2018 LRDP. The study locations are largely consistent with those included in the campus mitigation monitoring program adopted under the 2003 LRDP EIR (University of California, Davis 2003). The monitoring program evaluates traffic operations and identifies improvements needed to accommodate growth within the campus vicinity. Study locations were revised based on campus growth patterns since 2003, as well as the projected distribution of 2018 LRDP traffic. For example, the Russell Boulevard/Lake Boulevard intersection was evaluated in the 2003 LRDP EIR but is not included in this EIR since a nominal amount of 2018 LRDP traffic is expected to utilize the intersection. Conversely, the Hutchison Drive/Sage Street intersection was added to this EIR since the expansion of West Village and other 2018 LRDP growth is expected to add substantial traffic to the intersection. The City of Davis submitted an NOP comment letter requesting that specific roadway facilities (i.e., intersections and roadway segments) be included in the 2018 LRDP EIR transportation analysis. The analysis locations illustrated in Exhibit include all roadway facilities requested in the comment letter. The comment letter also requested that several roadway network modifications (e.g., converting the Russell Boulevard/Howard Way, Russell Boulevard/California Avenue, and Russell Boulevard/Orchard Park Drive intersections to right-in/right-out access only) be evaluated in the EIR transportation analysis. In instances where the 2018 LRDP would cause a significant impact to local roadway facilities, the modifications referenced in the City of Davis NOP comment letter represent potential mitigation actions. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

11 2018 Long Range Development Plan EIR Volume Exhibit : Study Area and Analysis Locations

12 Table Study Intersections No. Study Intersection No. Study Intersection 1 Russell Boulevard/County Road Hutchison Drive/Kleiber Hall Drive 2 Russell Boulevard/Arlington Boulevard 27 Third Street/A Street 3 Russell Boulevard/Eisenhower Street 28 Third Street/B Street 4 Russell Boulevard/Arthur Street 29 Second Street/B Street 5 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Southbound (SB) Ramps 30 First Street/A Street 6 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Northbound (NB) Ramps 31 First Street/B Street 7 Russell Boulevard/Orchard Park Drive 32 First Street/D Street 8 Russell Boulevard/Sycamore Lane 33 First Street/E Street/Richards Boulevard 9 Russell Boulevard/Anderson Road/La Rue Road 34 Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive 10 Russell Boulevard/California Avenue 35 Richards Boulevard/I-80 Westbound (WB) Ramps 11 Russell Boulevard/Oak Avenue 36 Richards Boulevard/I-80 Eastbound (EB) Ramps 12 Russell Boulevard/College Park/Howard Way 37 Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive 13 Russell Boulevard/A Street 38 Hutchison Drive/Old Davis Road 14 Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street 39 Arboretum Drive/Old Davis Road 15 Orchard Road/Orchard Park Drive 40 La Rue Road/Garrod Drive 16 Orchard Road/La Rue Road 41 La Rue Road/Dairy Road 17 Hutchison Drive/County Road La Rue Road/Bioletti Way 18 Hutchison Drive/Hopkins Road 43 Old Davis Road/Alumni Lane 19 Hutchison Drive/Sage Street 44 Old Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive 20 Hutchison Drive/SR 113 SB Ramps 45 Old Davis Road/Hilgard Lane 21 Hutchison Drive/SR 113 NB Ramps 46 Old Davis Road/California Avenue 22 Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive 47 Old Davis Road/I-80 WB Ramps 23 Hutchison Drive/Extension Center Drive 48 Old Davis Road/I-80 EB Ramps 24 Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road 49 Hutchison Drive Extension/Hutchison Drive 25 Hutchison Drive/Dairy Road Table Study Local Roadway Segments No. Study Local Roadway Segment No. Study Local Roadway Segment 1 County Road 98: north of Hutchison Drive 16 Hutchison Drive: east of SR County Road 98: south of Putah Creek 17 Old Davis Road: east of Alumni Lane 3 Russell Boulevard: Arlington Boulevard to SR Old Davis Road: north of I-80 4 Russell Boulevard: SR 113 to La Rue Road 19 Old Davis Road: south of I-80 5 Russell Boulevard: La Rue Road to California Avenue 20 Sycamore Lane: south of Covell Boulevard 6 Russell Boulevard: California Avenue to A Street 21 Sycamore Lane: north of Russell Boulevard 7 La Rue Road: south of Russell Boulevard 22 Anderson Road: south of Covell Boulevard Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

13 Table Study Local Roadway Segments No. Study Local Roadway Segment No. Study Local Roadway Segment 8 La Rue Road: Orchard Park Drive to Hutchison Drive 23 Anderson Road: north of Russell Boulevard 9 La Rue Road: Garrod Drive to Dairy Road 24 F Street: north of 5th Street 10 California Avenue: south of Russell Boulevard 25 Russell Boulevard: west of Arlington Boulevard 11 Howard Way: south of Russell Boulevard 26 Hutchison Drive: east of Hopkins Road 12 A Street: First Street to Russell Boulevard 27 Orchard Park Drive: south of Orchard Park Circle 13 Old Davis Road: south of First Street 28 5th Street: east of B Street 14 First Street: A Street to Richards Boulevard 29 5th Street: west of Pole Line Road 15 Hutchison Drive: west of SR Cowell Boulevard: east of Research Park Drive DATA COLLECTION Peak hour intersection turning movement counts and daily roadway counts were collected within the campus and on nearby City of Davis and Yolo County roadways in October of Counts were conducted during the Fall quarter to evaluate traffic operations for a typical day within the academic year. Fall quarter enrollment typically exceeds Winter and Spring quarter enrollment due to a variety of factors (e.g., study abroad). Therefore, use of Fall quarter traffic counts minimizes the potential for underestimating typical weekday conditions throughout the academic year. Although has classes and activities throughout the year, Summer session has a lower enrollment than enrollment during the Fall, Winter, and Spring sessions. Moreover, the total population and corresponding traffic volumes throughout Davis decrease during the summer months as students leave Davis for break. Therefore, although the impact analysis focuses on the traditional academic year, no additional impacts would occur during the summer months. Intersections Intersection turning movement counts were conducted during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods at the 49 study intersections listed in Table Of the 49 study intersections, 41 were studied in the 2003 LRDP EIR. Intersection counts included volumes for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Weather conditions during the traffic counts were dry and sunny. Peak hour traffic volumes derived from the intersection turning movement counts are illustrated in Appendix H. Roadway Segments Daily two-way traffic volume counts were conducted over a three-day (72-hour) period at 24 of the roadway segment locations listed in Table Counts recorded at the six primary campus gateways included vehicle classification information (i.e., passenger vehicle, two-axle vehicle, bus, etc.) in addition to total traffic volumes. Intersection turning movement counts recorded at adjacent intersections were utilized to determine a.m., p.m., and daily volumes at the remaining six roadway segment locations. ROADWAY OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY This section describes the roadway operations analysis methodology. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

14 Freeways Freeway performance is largely evaluated based on traffic volume, travel speeds, and the stability or reliability of travel speeds. For this project, recent analysis completed by SACOG, MTC, and Caltrans was used to describe current and future traffic operations. A substantial amount of analysis has already been performed by these agencies to evaluate freeway performance and to determine the specific future freeway modifications that would be compatible with federal, state and regional plans to support planned regional population, employment, and student growth, which is inclusive of growth under the proposed 2018 LRDP. Relying on this analysis is essential since any modification of the freeway system to accommodate growth must be compatible with federal, state, and regional air pollutant and greenhouse gas reduction goals as well as fit within the financial resources of each region. Intersections Intersection level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade, from A to F is assigned, based on quantitative measurements of delay per vehicle. The grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. The grades do not reflect the perspective of other users such as bicyclists and pedestrians. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions, and LOS F represents severe delay under stop-and-go conditions. Level of service is assessed using the control delay methodology described in the Transportation Research Board s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6 th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2016). Table summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for signalized intersections. Table LOS A B C D E F Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Description This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is low and either progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is short. More vehicles stop than with LOS A. This level is typically assigned when progression is favorable or the cycle length is moderate. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as the result of insufficient capacity during the cycle) may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high and either progression is ineffective or the cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is high, progression is unfavorable, and the cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. This level is typically assigned when the volume-to-capacity ratio is very high (greater than 1.0), progression is very poor, and the cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. Source: Transportation Research Board Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) 10 > 10 to 20 > 20 to 35 > 35 to 55 > 55 to 80 > 80 The LOS at signalized intersections is based on the average control delay (i.e., delay resulting from initial deceleration, queue move-up time, time stopped on an intersection approach, and final acceleration) experienced per vehicle traveling through the intersection. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

15 Similar to signalized intersections, the HCM 6 th Edition methodology for roundabouts and stopcontrolled intersections reports the LOS based on the control delay experienced by motorists traveling through the intersection. As shown in Table , the delay ranges for roundabouts and stop controlled intersections are lower than for signalized intersections. The HCM anticipates that motorists expect signalized intersections to carry higher traffic volume that result in greater delay than a stop controlled intersection. Roundabouts and stop controls are associated with more uncertainty as delays are less predictable, which can reduce users delay tolerance. Table Roundabout and Stop-Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria LOS Average Control Delay 1 A 10 B > 10 to 15 C > 15 to 25 D > 25 to 35 E > 35 to 50 F > 50 Note: For stop-controlled intersections, represents average control delay for minor street movements and major-street left-turns. Source: Transportation Research Board As described in Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 th Edition, the LOS for all-way stop controlled intersections is based on the average control delay for the entire intersection. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, the LOS is determined separately for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as major-street left turn movements, per Chapter 20 of the HCM 6 th Edition. However, in previous traffic studies, the LOS for side-street stop-controlled intersections was based on the average control delay for the intersection as a whole. To be consistent with both the HCM 6 th Edition and recent studies, this analysis documents the LOS for side-street stop-controlled intersections in two forms: Intersection LOS: based on the weighted average of the control delay experienced by each movement of the intersection. Worst-case LOS: based on the movement (or shared movement) with the greatest control delay at the intersection. Use of Micro-Simulation Traffic Operations Analysis This study analyzes 22 of the 49 study intersections using Trafficware s Synchro 10 software. Synchro 10 is a state-of-the-practice traffic operations analysis software that calculates the control delay consistent with the HCM 6 th Edition methodology and is appropriate for intersections that do not experience high delays, queuing, or conflicts between multiple modes. To account for the effects of turn-pocket overflows, vehicle queuing interactions between closely spaced or adjacent intersections, and high volume interactions between vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, micro-simulation was performed for the remaining 27 study intersections. Table summarizes these locations. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

16 Table Study Intersections Analyzed Using Micro-Simulation Study Intersection Study Intersection No. Russell Boulevard Corridor No. Old Davis Road Corridor 4 Russell Boulevard/Arthur Street 30 First Street/A Street 5 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Southbound (SB) Ramps 38 Hutchison Drive/Old Davis Road 6 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Northbound (NB) Ramps 39 Arboretum Drive/Old Davis Road 7 Russell Boulevard/Orchard Park Drive 43 Old Davis Road/Alumni Lane 8 Russell Boulevard/Sycamore Lane 44 Old Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive 9 Russell Boulevard/Anderson Road/La Rue Road 45 Old Davis Road/Hilgard Lane 10 Russell Boulevard/California Avenue 46 Old Davis Road/California Avenue 11 Russell Boulevard/Oak Avenue 47 Old Davis Road/I-80 WB Ramps 12 Russell Boulevard/College Park/Howard Way 48 Old Davis Road/I-80 EB Ramps 13 Russell Boulevard/A Street 14 Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street No. Richards Boulevard Corridor 32 First Street/D Street 33 First Street/E Street/Richards Boulevard 34 Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive 35 Richards Boulevard/I-80 Westbound (WB) Ramps 36 Richards Boulevard/I-80 Eastbound (EB) Ramps 37 Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive Two different microsimulation software programs were used to analyze the locations above. SimTraffic 10 was selected for the Russell Boulevard Corridor (intersections 4-14) and the Old Davis Road corridor (intersections 30, 38, 39, and 43 through 48). SimTraffic is the micro-simulation addon to Trafficware s Synchro software. It captures the nature of driver behavior and models the interaction between vehicles in a study network. SimTraffic better accounts for the effects of turnpocket queue overflows, queue blocking, queue interactions between adjacent intersections, and pedestrian crossing interactions when compared to conventional, deterministic analysis methods, such as those outlined in the HCM 6 th Edition and applied in Synchro 10. The SimTraffic model was calibrated and validated to existing conditions based on travel time data, peak hour volumes, and observed maximum queue lengths. The Richards Boulevard Corridor (intersections 32-37) was analyzed using VISSIM, which is an advanced simulation software that analyzes the traffic operations of cars, trucks, transit vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. VISSIM is extremely flexible for simulating complex traffic operations projects such as those presented in the Richards Boulevard corridor due to high levels of vehicle weaving caused by the loop ramp configurations and a high mix of vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic through the constrained Richards Boulevard tunnel approaches. The Vissim model incorporates vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes, traffic lanes, turn pockets, bus lanes, and bus stop locations. Signal timing plans, including vehicle and pedestrian signal phases, for each signalized intersection are incorporated into the model. Maximum vehicle speeds in the model are consistent with posted speed limits, although random speed variability is assigned to each vehicle, Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

17 causing them to drive above or below the speed limit, to mimic prevailing driver behavior. The pedestrian and bicycle volumes were directly modeled through use of pedestrian crossing counts and bicycle turning movement counts taken at the same time as the intersection vehicle turning movement counts. The model was calibrated and validated to existing conditions based on travel time data, peak hour volumes, and observed maximum queue lengths. Because micro-simulation models rely on the random arrival of vehicles, multiple runs are needed to provide a reasonable level of statistical accuracy and validity. The SimTraffic and Vissim models were run up to twenty times (each using a different random seed number) and ten of those runs were selected and averaged to determine final model outputs. Selected runs were screened to exclude outliers that under- or over-emphasized delay compared to observed conditions. Roadway Segments The roadway segments listed in Table were evaluated based on the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. Roadway segment analysis is included for purposes of evaluating future year traffic operations. Intersections tend to govern peak hour traffic operations of the local roadway network since they represent the location where traffic movements conflict and capacity of the roadway segment is reduced based on the allocation of right-of-way by traffic control devices such as traffic signals. However, performing intersection analysis for future conditions beyond five to ten years can be speculative given the difficulty of accurately predicting inputs such as individual turning movement volumes and traffic signal operations. To gauge the adequacy of roadway capacity for future conditions, roadway segment analysis can be used instead. The specific methodology involves developing roadway segment volume thresholds correlated to peak hour LOS expectations based on the HCM 6 th Edition. The HCM procedures consider a variety of capacity factors associated with the type of roadway and how intersections are controlled but does not require forecasting individual turning movement volumes. The technical calculations used to derive the volume thresholds for each roadway type and LOS value are contained in Appendix H. ROADWAY OPERATIONS 2016 BASELINE CONDITIONS Freeways Regional and corridor analysis by SACOG, MTC, and Caltrans has already evaluated I-80 and SR 113. A brief summary of previous studies is listed below. Previous Analysis Sources Yolo County 2016 SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) (SACOG February 18, 2016). This document is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for the six-county Sacramento region, which includes Yolo County. District System Management and Development Plan, Caltrans District 3 (Caltrans January 25, 2013). Interstate 80 and Capital City Freeway Corridor System Management Plan (Caltrans May 2009). Transportation Concept Report Interstate 80, District 3 (Caltrans August 4, 2017). Transportation Concept Report State Route 113, District 3 (Caltrans July 24, 2014). Interstate 80/United States 50 Davis to Downtown Sacramento Preliminary Investigation (Caltrans June 2014). Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

18 I-80/Richards Blvd Interchange Project Study Report Project Development Support (PSR- PDS) (Caltrans April 5, 2017). Solano County Plan Bay Area 2040 (Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments July 26, 2017). This document is the RTP/SCS for the nine-county Bay Area region, which includes Solano County. Caltrans District 4 Transportation System Development Plan (Caltrans December 1, 2011). I-80 East Corridor System Management Plan District 4 (Caltrans June 2017). Of the various studies, Caltrans analysis tends to be the most detailed with regards to roadway operations performance. According to the Interstate 80/United States 50 Davis to Downtown Sacramento Preliminary Investigation, District 3 (Caltrans June 2014), much of the I-80 corridor in the study area has low travel speeds during the p.m. peak period while the a.m. peak period has a few isolated areas of low travel speeds (see graphic below). As shown in the graphic, I-80 travelers experience slow speeds (i.e., LOS F conditions) for select westbound locations during the morning peak period and more severe and extended areas of slow speeds in the eastbound direction during the evening peak period. More recent observed conditions reveal that a.m. and p.m. traffic speeds have continued to degrade such that more segments of I-80 perform poorly. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

19 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

20 A review of similar information for I-80 in Solano County (e.g., (I-80 East Corridor System Management Plan District 4, [Caltrans June 2017]) revealed evidence that slow freeway speeds (i.e., LOS F conditions) occur near the Yolo/Solano County line in the eastbound direction during the evening peak period (see graphic below). SR 113 performs much better than I-80 with Caltrans reporting LOS B conditions between Davis and Woodland under base year (2014) conditions in the Transportation Concept Report State Route 113, District 3 (Caltrans July 24, 2014) (see graphic below). Intersections Table and Exhibit present the LOS for the study intersections for 2016 baseline conditions. All intersections operate at or above the applicable LOS standard set by the jurisdiction controlling the intersection (see Standards of Significance discussion). Table Study Intersection Operations 2016 Baseline Conditions No. Study Intersection Control Type Jurisdiction A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Russell Boulevard/County Road 98 AWSC Yolo County 10 A 9 A 2 Russell Boulevard/Arlington Boulevard SSSC City of Davis 3 (27) A (D) 4 (32) A (D) 3 Russell Boulevard/Eisenhower Street SSSC City of Davis 1 (27) A (D) 1 (20) A (C) 4 Russell Boulevard/Arthur Street Signal Caltrans 20 C 16 B 5 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Southbound (SB) Ramps Signal Caltrans 7 A 6 A 6 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Northbound (NB) Ramps Signal Caltrans 18 B 33 C 7 Russell Boulevard/Orchard Park Drive SSSC City of Davis 3 (22) A (C) 4 (28) A (D) 8 Russell Boulevard/Sycamore Lane Signal City of Davis 20 C 20 C 9 Russell Boulevard/Anderson Road/La Rue Road Signal City of Davis 24 C 27 C 10 Russell Boulevard/California Avenue SSSC City of Davis 3 (11) A (B) 3 (9) A (A) 11 Russell Boulevard/Oak Avenue Signal City of Davis 8 A 11 B 12 Russell Boulevard/College Park/Howard Way Signal City of Davis 16 B 22 C 13 Russell Boulevard/A Street Signal City of Davis 13 B 12 B 14 Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street Signal City of Davis 25 C 21 C 15 Orchard Road/Orchard Park Drive 3 AWSC 8 A 7 A 16 Orchard Road/La Rue Road 3 Signal 22 C 28 C 17 Hutchison Drive/County Road 98 SSSC Yolo County 4 (16) A (C) 5 (14) A (B) 18 Hutchison Drive/Hopkins Road SSSC Yolo County 3 (10) A (A) 5 (10) A (A) 19 Hutchison Drive/Sage Street Roundabout 4 A 4 A 20 Hutchison Drive/SR 113 SB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 12 (33) B (D) 2 (18) A (B) Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

21 Table Study Intersection Operations 2016 Baseline Conditions No. Study Intersection Control Type Jurisdiction A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 21 Hutchison Drive/SR 113 NB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 5 (29) A (D) 3 (17) A (C) 22 Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive Signal 7 A 7 A 23 Hutchison Drive/Extension Center Drive SSSC 2 (30) A (D) 2 (30) A (D) 24 Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road Signal 16 B 21 C 25 Hutchison Drive/Dairy Road Signal 19 B 19 B 26 Hutchison Drive/Kleiber Hall Drive AWSC 10 A 9 A 27 Third Street/A Street AWSC City of Davis 10 A 10 A 28 Third Street/B Street Signal City of Davis 8 A 10 A 29 Second Street/B Street SSSC City of Davis 2 (16) A (C) 4 (23) A (C) 30 First Street/A Street SSSC City of Davis 4 (15) A (C) 6 (14) A (B) 31 First Street/B Street AWSC City of Davis 14 B 13 B 32 First Street/D Street Signal City of Davis 10 B 40 D 33 First Street/E Street/Richards Boulevard Signal City of Davis 26 C 42 D 34 Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive Signal City of Davis 15 B 44 D 35 Richards Boulevard/I-80 Westbound (WB) Ramps Free Caltrans 2 (3) A (A) 3 (7) A (A) 36 Richards Boulevard/I-80 Eastbound (EB) Ramps Signal Caltrans 29 C 42 D 37 Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive Signal City of Davis 27 C 33 C 38 Hutchison Drive/Old Davis Road AWSC 9 A 28 D 39 Arboretum Drive/Old Davis Road AWSC 7 A 21 C 40 La Rue Road/Garrod Drive SSSC 2 (10) A (B) 4 (15) A (C) 41 La Rue Road/Dairy Road SSSC 1 (19) A (C) 1 (17) A (C) 42 La Rue Road/Bioletti Way SSSC 1 (14) A (B) 3 (15) A (C) 43 Old Davis Road/Alumni Lane AWSC 8 A 11 B 44 Old Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive Signal 15 C 14 B 45 Old Davis Road/Hilgard Lane SSSC 2 (11) A (B) 5 (14) A (B) 46 Old Davis Road/California Avenue Roundabout 27 D 8 A 47 Old Davis Road/I-80 WB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 4 (13) A (B) 1 (9) A (A) 48 Old Davis Road/I-80 EB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 6 (9) A (A) 5 (11) A (B) Notes: 1. Traffic Control: AWSC = all-way stop control; SSSC = side street stop control; Signal = traffic signal. 2. Signals, all-way stops and roundabouts: LOS based on average control delay in seconds. Side street stop controlled intersections: LOS given for the average intersection delay followed by the worst side-street movement in parentheses. 3. LOS does not match observed conditions due to heavy bike traffic using vehicle travel lane. Source: Fehr & Peers 2017 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

22 Exhibit : 2016 Baseline A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Intersection LOS Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

23 Roadway Segments Baseline conditions roadway segment LOS results are contained in Table based on the peak hour volumes shown in Exhibit All study roadway segments operate at or above the applicable LOS standard set by the jurisdiction controlling the roadway facility. Note that peak hour LOS results may vary between study roadway segments and adjacent study intersections due to differences in analysis methodology and roadway facility type. In instances where a study roadway segment includes or is adjacent to a study intersection, the intersection LOS governs the operation as it is the constraint point in the segment where traffic flow conflicts. Table No. Study Local Roadway Segment Operations 2016 Baseline Conditions Study Local Roadway Segment Functional Classification (# of Lanes) 1 Jurisdiction A.M. Peak Hour Two-Way Volume LOS P.M. Peak Hour Two-Way Volume 1 County Road 98: north of Hutchison Drive Highway (2) Yolo County 370 C 415 C 2 County Road 98: south of Putah Creek Highway (2) Yolo County 230 C 295 C 3 Russell Boulevard: Arlington Boulevard to SR 113 Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,160 C 1,140 C 4 Russell Boulevard: SR 113 to La Rue Road Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,390 C 1,605 C 5 Russell Boulevard: La Rue Road to California Avenue Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,270 C 1,800 C 6 Russell Boulevard: California Avenue to A Street Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,165 C 1,705 C 7 La Rue Road: south of Russell Boulevard Arterial (4) 725 C 1,030 C 8 La Rue Road: Orchard Park Drive to Hutchison Drive Arterial (4) 660 C 735 C 9 La Rue Road: Garrod Drive to Dairy Road Collector (2) 610 D 525 C 10 California Avenue: south of Russell Boulevard Collector (2) 315 C 235 C 11 Howard Way: south of Russell Boulevard Collector (2) 505 C 530 C 12 A Street: First Street to Russell Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 145 C 205 C 13 Old Davis Road: south of First Street Collector (2) 485 C 610 D 14 First Street: A Street to Richards Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 695 D 690 D 15 Hutchison Drive: west of SR-113 Arterial (4) 570 C 675 C 16 Hutchison Drive: east of SR-113 Arterial (4) 1,365 C 1,255 C 17 Old Davis Road: east of Alumni Lane Collector (2) 425 C 540 C 18 Old Davis Road: north of I-80 Collector (2) 895 D 800 D 19 Old Davis Road: south of I-80 Highway (2) 110 C 95 C 20 Sycamore Lane: south of Covell Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 330 C 420 C 21 Sycamore Lane: north of Russell Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 555 C 590 D 22 Anderson Road: south of Covell Boulevard Arterial (4) City of Davis 780 C 795 C 23 Anderson Road: north of Russell Boulevard Arterial (2) City of Davis 725 C 860 C 24 F Street: north of 5th Street Arterial (2) City of Davis 390 C 565 C LOS Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

24 Table No. Study Local Roadway Segment Operations 2016 Baseline Conditions Study Local Roadway Segment Functional Classification (# of Lanes) 1 Jurisdiction A.M. Peak Hour Two-Way Volume LOS P.M. Peak Hour Two-Way Volume 25 Russell Boulevard: west of Arlington Boulevard Arterial (2) City of Davis 615 C 650 C 26 Hutchison Drive: east of Hopkins Road Collector (2) 270 C 250 C 27 Orchard Park Drive: south of Orchard Park Circle Collector (2) 70 C 110 C 28 5th Street: east of B Street Arterial (2) City of Davis 870 C 1,265 D 29 5th Street: west of Pole Line Road Arterial (4) City of Davis 780 C 975 C 30 Cowell Boulevard: east of Research Park Drive Arterial (2) City of Davis 1,060 D 1,375 D Notes: 1. Arterial, collector, and highway functional classifications are assigned per the relevant physical and operational characteristics described in the Highway Capacity Manual. For analysis purposes, functional classifications assigned to individual study roadway segments may deviate from those established by local jurisdictions. Source: Fehr & Peers 2017 LOS BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycling is an integral component of the transportation system. According to the 2016/17 Campus Travel Survey ( Institute of Transportation Studies 2017), 43 percent of students and 17 percent of employees utilize bicycling for their daily commute, totaling approximately 13,800 persons traveling to the campus by bike on a typical weekday. Bicycle facilities are typically categorized in the following classifications: Class I Multi-Use Off-Street Paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways, and allow for shared use by both cyclists and pedestrians. Class II On-Street Bike Lanes are designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Class III On-Street Bike Routes are designated by signage for shared bicycle use with vehicles but do not necessarily include any additional pavement width for bicyclists. Class IV Separated Bikeways (also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks) separated bikeways improve upon buffered bike lanes by providing vertical separation between bike lanes and the adjacent travel lanes. Vertical separation can be provided with concrete curb and gutter, bollards or on-street parking. Bicycle activity is facilitated by an extensive on- and off-street bicycle facility network on and surrounding the campus. As shown in Exhibit , bicycle paths provide direct access to the core campus from the north, south, east, and west. Within the core campus, several bicycle facility types connect bicyclists to residential, academic, and recreational facilities. Off-street bike paths including Sprocket Bikeway and the Arboretum Trail carry bicyclists east-west through the core campus. Within the core campus, several roadways including Hutchison Drive, North Quad, and Shields Avenue prohibit private vehicle access, providing capacity for large volumes of bicyclists traversing the campus. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

25 Exhibit : 2016 Baseline A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Roadway Segment Volumes Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

26 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR Exhibit : 2016 Baseline Bicycle Facilities

27 Bicycle facilities connect the campus with off-campus residential neighborhoods located throughout the City of Davis. Access from West Davis is available via a Class I facility on the south side of Russell Boulevard and Class II bike lanes on Arthur Street, Eisenhower Street, and Arlington Boulevard. Access from North and Central Davis is available via Class II bike lanes on Sycamore Lane, Anderson Road, Oak Street, and B Street. Access from Downtown and East Davis is available via Class II bike lanes on Fifth Street and Third Street and a Class I facility along the south side of First Street. Access from South Davis is available via the Putah Creek trail extending east underneath I-80. A Class I facility on the south side of Russell Boulevard facilitates bicycle travel along the northern edge of campus. Within the campus vicinity, several grade-separated crossings facilitate bicycle travel across high volume roadways. A bicycle tunnel is provided at La Rue Road north of Orchard Road to serve the onand off-campus residential uses adjacent to Russell Boulevard, and a second tunnel under La Rue Road is located south of Hutchison Drive to connect the Health Sciences District with the central campus. A bicycle tunnel is also located along Old Davis Road at the I-80 interchange. A bicycle bridge is located across SR 113 north of Hutchison Drive and south of Russell Boulevard to serve West Village and other campus facilities and residential uses to the west of the campus. The Putah Creek bicycle undercrossing of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) connects the east end of the University Arboretum with south Davis. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Several factors contribute to a highly walkable campus environment. Compact development patterns enable students and employees to walk short distances between residential, academic, and recreational destinations on and surrounding campus, as well as nearby shopping and entertainment destinations in Downtown Davis and at the University Mall. Flat terrain and a mild year-round climate allow for a comfortable pedestrian environment throughout the academic year. Finally, the multimodal transportation system serving the campus, particularly the availability of high quality transit service, supports walking as a viable first-/last-mile mobility option for students and employees. The on-campus transportation system has evolved to provide convenient and comfortable pedestrian facilities throughout much of the campus. Walkways are present near most campus facilities and many pathways linking campus districts are designated as shared pedestrian and bicycle routes. Most roadways open to general vehicular traffic include adjacent sidewalks for pedestrians. Marked pedestrian crosswalks are provided at each of the signalized intersections on campus and at most of the stop-controlled intersections. In addition, pedestrians use the grade-separated crossings (i.e., tunnels or bridges) at La Rue Road, SR 113, and at the east end of the Arboretum. High volumes of pedestrian activity are concentrated near and within major campus activity centers, including the core campus area, on-campus residential districts, and the Activities and Recreation Center (i.e., ARC ). High pedestrian volumes are also concentrated near connections with other modes of transportation, including transit stops and parking garages. Pedestrian volumes are typically at their peak during the morning and evening commute periods and during passing periods between classes. TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES Transit service to and from the campus is provided by local and regional operators. Specific transit routes serving the campus are shown in Exhibit and descriptions of the individual operators are summarized below. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

28 Exhibit : 2016 Baseline Transit Service and Facilities Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

29 Unitrans provides local fixed route bus service to the campus. Jointly operated between and the City of Davis, Unitrans offers 19 routes serving campus and Davis neighborhoods, shopping centers, schools, and medical centers. Unitrans operates as a radial bus system with the campus serving as the central hub. The main terminals on the UC Davis campus are at the Memorial Union on Howard Way and at the Silo along Hutchison Drive. Roadways utilized by high volumes of Unitrans bus trips serving the campus include Russell Boulevard, Anderson Road/La Rue Road, Hutchison Drive, B Street, First Street, and Richards Boulevard. Table summarizes the weekday and weekend frequency and span for Unitrans bus routes serving the campus. Unitrans operates from 6:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and until 7 p.m. on Fridays. Weekend service is available from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Unitrans routes operate every 15 or 30 minutes during weekdays and every 60 minutes during weekends. The current Unitrans one-way fare is $1.00, with monthly, quarterly, and annual passes available at a discounted price. Free rides are available to undergraduate students, seniors, disabled passengers, City of Davis employees, and transferring Sacramento Regional Transit, Yolobus, Capitol Corridor, and Fairfield Transit passengers. Table Route Summary of Unitrans Bus Routes Serving Campus Primary UC Davis Terminal Frequency (Peak/Off- Peak) Weekday Service Span (Monday Thursday) Frequency (Peak/Off-Peak) Weekend Service Span A Downtown/5 th Street/Alhambra Silo 30/30 7 a.m. 11 p.m B Sycamore/Drake Memorial Union 30/30 7 a.m. 8:30 p.m C Sycamore/Wake Forest Silo 30/30 7 a.m. 10 p.m D Lake/Arlington Silo 15/15 7 a.m. 10:30 p.m E Downtown/F Street/J Street Memorial Union 30/30 7 a.m. 10 p.m F Oak/E. Alvarado/Anderson/F Street Memorial Union 30/30 7 a.m. 8:30 p.m G Anderson/Alvarado/N. Sycamore Memorial Union 15/15 7 a.m. 10:30 p.m. 60/60 9 a.m. 7 p.m. J Anderson/Alvarado/N. Sycamore Silo 15/15 7 a.m. 11 p.m K Lake/Arthur Memorial Union 30/30 7 a.m. 8 p.m. 60/60 9:30 a.m. 7 p.m. L E. 8 th Street/Pole Line/Moore/Loyola Silo 30/30 6:30 a.m. 11 p.m M Cowell/Drew Memorial Union 30/30 7 a.m. 8:30 p.m. 60/60 9 a.m. 6:30 p.m. O Shopper s Shuttle/Downtown/Target Memorial Union /60 9 a.m. 7 p.m. P Davis Perimeter Counter Clockwise Memorial Union 30/30 6:30 a.m. 11:30 p.m. 60/60 8:30 a.m. 7 p.m. Q Davis Perimeter Clockwise Memorial Union 30/30 6:30 a.m. 11:30 p.m. 60/60 8:30 a.m. 7 p.m. V West Village Silo 15/15 7 a.m. 10:30 p.m. 60/60 9:30 a.m. 7 p.m. W Cowell/Lillard/Drummond Silo 15/15 7 a.m. 11 p.m X Residence Hall Loop/Aggie Stadium Memorial Union /60 9 a.m. 7 p.m. Z Amtrak/5 th Street/Target Memorial Union 30/30 7 a.m. 6:30 p.m Source: Unitrans 2017 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

30 The Unitrans General Manager Report for Fiscal Year (Unitrans October 6, 2017) details the performance of individual bus routes and the entire Unitrans system relative to Unitrans service standards established in the City of Davis Short Range Transit Plan (Fiscal Years 2014/ /21). Table presents the current Unitrans service performance for measures related to productivity, cost recovery, and capacity. During the school year, approximately 93 percent of all students and employees who commuted to campus by bus at least one during the week utilized Unitrans services, the equivalent of 10,130 passengers ( Institute of Transportation Studies and Transportation and Parking Services 2017). Table Route Summary of Unitrans Bus Route Performance Productivity (Passengers per Hour) Cost Recovery (Farebox Recovery Ratio) Capacity (Load Factor) A Downtown/5 th Street/Alhambra 41 45% N/A B Sycamore/Drake 54 59% N/A C Sycamore/Wake Forest 57 63% N/A D Lake/Arlington 60 66% N/A E Downtown/F Street/J Street 44 48% N/A F Oak/E. Alvarado/Anderson/F Street 42 47% N/A G Anderson/Alvarado/N. Sycamore 68 76% N/A J Anderson/Alvarado/N. Sycamore 85 94% N/A K Lake/Arthur 47 52% N/A L E. 8 th Street/Pole Line/Moore/Loyola 29 32% N/A M Cowell/Drew 46 51% N/A P Davis Perimeter Counter Clockwise 28 31% N/A Q Davis Perimeter Clockwise 30 33% N/A V West Village 91 90% N/A W Cowell/Lillard/Drummond 73 81% N/A Z Amtrak/5 th Street/Target 48 53% N/A Systemwide Total 50 55% Service Standard from City of Davis Short Range Transit Plan Systemwide = 45 Individual Route = 15 Systemwide = 60% Individual Route = 20% Acceptable loading conditions on 96.5% of bus trips and for 90.6% of bus riders Acceptable loading conditions on 95% of bus trips and for 90% of bus riders Source: Unitrans General Manager Report for Fiscal Year , October 6, 2017; City of Davis Short Range Transit Plan (Fiscal Years 2014/ /21) Yolobus provides extensive fixed route bus and paratransit service throughout Yolo County, as well as commuter bus service to downtown Sacramento. Single rides are available for $2.25 and $3.25 for local and express services, respectively. Discounted daily and monthly passes are also available. Local bus routes serving the campus include Routes 42A, 42B, and 220. Commute bus routes serving employees include Routes 220C (from Winters), 242 (from Woodland), Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

31 243, (from Woodland), and 43R (from Sacramento). Commute bus routes serving passengers working in Sacramento include Routes 43, 44, and 231. During the school year, approximately two percent of all students and employees who commuted to campus by bus at least one during the week utilized Yolobus services, the equivalent of 230 passengers ( Institute of Transportation Studies and Transportation and Parking Services 2017). Amtrak serves at the Davis Transit Depot near Second and G Streets in downtown Davis, approximately one-half mile east of the campus. Amtrak Capitol Corridor service is available at the depot, connecting passengers to Sacramento and Roseville to the east and the Bay Area to the west. Currently, 15 daily Capitol Corridor round-trips are available at the station during regular weekday service. In addition to regular Capitol Corridor service, Amtrak serves the Davis Transit Depot with daily Coast Starlight service (to Los Angeles and Seattle) and intercity bus connections to other Amtrak rail lines (e.g., the Amtrak San Joaquin lines at Sacramento Valley Station). The Solano Express is operated by Fairfield and Suisun Transit. Route 30 provides intercity bus service between Fairfield, Vacaville, Dixon,, and Sacramento. The campus is served by two weekday round-trips and three Saturday round-trips. The Medical Center Shuttle operates between the main campus and the UC Davis Medical Center campus in Sacramento. Hourly service is available Monday through Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. During the school year, approximately five percent of all students and employees who commuted to campus by bus at least one during the week utilized the Medical Center Shuttle ( Institute of Transportation Studies and Transportation and Parking Services 2017). The UC Berkeley Shuttle provides two daily round-trips between the and UC Berkeley campuses. Passengers are limited to students, faculty, and staff of either University. Davis Community Transit provides complementary paratransit service for individuals with qualifying disabilities for all Unitrans routes and local Yolobus routes. PARKING Parking at is available at a combination of surface lots, parking structures, and on-street parking spaces. Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) manages parking resources on the UC Davis campus including selling parking passes, ticketing violators, and measuring parking utilization throughout campus on a quarterly basis. Currently, approximately 18,000 parking spaces are present on the campus, including the main campus, west campus, and south campus. Approximately 14,500 parking spaces are available to permitted student and employee commuters and campus visitors, while the remaining 3,500 parking spaces are reserved for on-campus residents. Approximately 11,200 of the 14,500 nonresident parking spaces are located in the main campus area. Non-resident parking supply and utilization data collected by TAPS during Spring 2017 indicate that the peak hour for on-campus parking demand occurs at 2 p.m., when 75 percent of the non-resident parking spaces are occupied (see Table ). Parking demand drops substantially into the evening hours after the conclusion of classes and employee work days. Note that these figures do not include parking activity attributed to on-campus residents. A review of Spring 2017 parking utilization compared to Winter 2017 parking utilization revealed that Spring parking utilization was higher during the 2 p.m. peak hour. Therefore, Spring 2017 parking utilization is reported to reflect peak non-resident parking conditions on the campus throughout the academic year. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

32 Table Existing On-Campus Non-Resident Parking Utilization Parking Facility Type Spaces Average Utilization Average Utilization Rate 10 a.m. 2 p.m. 8 p.m. 10 a.m. 2 p.m. 8 p.m. Lots/Structures 8,847 7,140 7,371 1,988 81% 83% 22% On-Street % 42% 5% Metered Zones % 46% 46% Time Zones % 40% 27% Restricted % 51% 26% Electric Vehicle % 51% 31% Car/Van Pools % 93% 38% Diamond E/Vendor % 40% 42% Motorcycle Zones % 8% 1% Disabled Zones % 28% 7% Loading Zones % 23% 15% Total 11,197 8,172 8,345 2,468 73% 75% 22% Source: TAPS, Spring 2017 campus activities also generate parking demand in nearby off-campus areas, so not all UC Davis-related parking demand and supply is accounted for in Table For example, some UC Davis students and employees park in unrestricted on-street parking areas in the City of Davis such as along the Anderson Road corridor and ride Unitrans service to the campus. CAMPUS TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS The following section summarizes existing campus travel characteristics, including vehicular traffic patterns and student and employee travel behavior. Vehicular Traffic Patterns Daily roadway segment traffic counts conducted in Fall 2016 were used to determine vehicular travel patterns throughout the day and during peak commute hours within campus. Daily traffic counts at the six central campus gateways were used to estimate the number of vehicles entering and exiting the campus throughout the day. Table summarizes the distribution of campus a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, and daily traffic volumes at each of the six primary central campus gateways. On a daily basis, approximately 54,000 vehicles enter and exit the central campus. The gateway located at Hutchison Drive east of SR 113 is the most heavily utilized campus gateway, accommodating approximately 28 percent of all daily vehicle trips. Morning and evening peak hour distribution patterns are similar except for the La Rue Road gateway south of Russell Boulevard, which experiences 43 percent more vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour compared to the a.m. peak hour. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

33 Table Distribution of Central Campus Daily Traffic Baseline Conditions Location A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Total Volume % of Traffic Total Volume % of Traffic Total Volume % of Traffic Old Davis Road: north of I % % 9,290 17% La Rue Road: south of Russell Blvd % 1,030 23% 12,370 23% Old Davis Road: south of First Street % % 7,040 13% Hutchison Drive: east of SR 113 1,370 32% 1,260 28% 15,440 28% Howard Way: south of Russell Blvd % % 6,270 12% California Ave.: south of Russell Blvd % 230 5% 3,710 7% Total 4, % 4, % 54, % Note: a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes represent the global peak hour for all six central campus gateways. Source: Fehr & Peers 2016 Chart summarizes the temporal distribution of vehicles entering and exiting the six primary central campus gateways during a typical weekday. As shown, the peak vehicular travel times occur during typical morning (8:00 a.m.) and evening (5:00 p.m.) commute hours. During the middle of the day, vehicle traffic is fairly evenly balanced between inbound and outbound trips. Vehicles Entering/ Exiting Campus 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Chart Vehicle Travel Patterns at Central Campus Gateways Time Inbound Outbound Total Commute Mode Choice The Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) conducts an annual campus travel survey (CTS) to gain a better understanding of student, faculty, and staff travel behavior. The most recently available CTS report summarizes results from the survey distributed during the academic year. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

34 Table summarizes commute mode choice for students, faculty, and staff living oncampus, within Davis (but off-campus), and outside of Davis. The majority of students, faculty, and staff living in Davis, either on-campus or off-campus, walk, bike, or use transit to commute to and from campus. Conversely, the vast majority of students, faculty, and staff living outside of Davis utilize an automobile to commute to campus, with a high percentage driving alone. Table Mode Student, Faculty, and Staff Commute Mode Choice 2016 Baseline Conditions On-Campus Students Davis Off- Campus Outside of Davis On-Campus Faculty/Staff Davis Off- Campus Outside of Davis Walk or Skate 25% 6% 3% -- 6% 2% Bike 69% 43% 1% 100% 39% 1% Drive Alone 1% 15% 76% -- 40% 81% Carpool or Ride 1% 5% 9% -- 8% 10% Bus 4% 31% 7% -- 7% 3% Train % % Source: Institute of Transportation Studies Results of the 2016/17 Campus Travel Survey, July The mode split above results in about 12,020 vehicle, 6,830 transit, and 15,650 bike commute trips to campus. The vehicle trips generate demand for approximately 9,640 commute related parking spaces. Since total vehicle trips to and from campus are about 54,000 per day, the commute to campus represents about 22 percent of all daily vehicle trips and is associated with a total VMT of approximately 344,430. Table shows the various rates of commute VMT based on employee or student home location. Table Commute VMT Metric Student, Faculty, and Staff Commute to Campus VMT Comparison On-Campus Students Davis Off- Campus Outside of Davis Davis Off- Campus Faculty/Staff Outside of Davis Vehicle trips 122 2,898 2,411 1,842 4,753 VMT rate VMT , ,920 9, ,354 Source: Institute of Transportation Studies Results of the 2016/17 Campus Travel Survey, July 2017 Dividing the commute to campus VMT by the total number of students and employees results in a VMT/service population (students + employees) of Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

35 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Based on applicable policies of and other affected agencies, the proposed project would have a significant effect related to the transportation system if it meets any of the following criteria. Cause an increase in traffic that may be substantial in relation to the existing roadway capacity of the street system as indicated by LOS standards. The addition of project traffic causing a LOS change from acceptable to unacceptable would have a significant impact as would the exacerbation of unacceptable LOS conditions. The following LOS thresholds apply to the study locations. LOS F is the minimum acceptable LOS for. This threshold is based on the new UC Davis LOS policy identified in the 2018 LRDP. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for the City of Davis except LOS F is acceptable for the City of Davis Core Area and the Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive area where LOS F is acceptable. The following LOS standards are the minimum acceptable on the regional roadway networks identified in the Yolo County Congestion Management Plan (1996) and Solano County Congestion Management Plan (2015). LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for roadways and intersections in Solano County. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for I-80 and its associated interchanges between the Solano County limit and Mace Boulevard Olive Drive. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for SR 113 and its associated interchanges within the Davis city limits. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for Russell Boulevard between SR 113 and B Street. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for Richards Boulevard between First Street and I-80. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for First Street between B Street and Richards Boulevard. LOS E is the minimum acceptable LOS for B Street between First Street and 5th Street In addition, the project would have a significant impact if the project increases volume or delay by more than 10 percent at a study location with unacceptable or LOS F operations. The 10 percent allowance is based on the normal fluctuation in weekday traffic that occurs and the level of variability associated with traffic forecasts. For stop-controlled intersections, a significant impact also requires that the intersection delay for all movements exceeds the LOS F threshold or that the intersection meets the peak hour volume signal warrant. Physically disrupt an existing bicycle facility, pedestrian facility, or transit service/facility or interfere with the implementation of a planned service/facility. Conflict with applicable adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting active transportation, transit, and VMT reduction such that the conflict causes a reduction in bicycle or pedestrian trips, exceeds transit capacity, or increases conflicts between modes. The evaluation of project effects will consider baseline and cumulative conditions. The specific policies, plans or program include those referenced above in the regulatory setting related to the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS, the University of California Sustainable Practices Policy, the City of Davis General Plan, and the Yolo County General Plan. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

36 In addition to the criteria above, the impact analysis included an assessment of parking demand and supply, which is provided for informational purposes. Impacts on parking are not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. recognizes that the relationship between parking demand and supply affects the experience of driving and parking on campus. However, environmental impacts tend to be associated with the construction of new parking facilities that disrupt the natural environment and any increases in driving that occur because parking becomes more convenient or if it becomes so scarce that drivers spend additional driving time to find an available space. strives to balance the needs of parking as development occurs on campus in a manner that does not increase the rate of driving, minimizes GHG and air pollutant emissions, and minimizes conflicts with transit, bicycling, and walking. Further, will comply with the University of California Sustainable Practices Policy noted above with regards to any new provision of parking structures. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The transportation impact analysis methodology includes a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the roadway operations, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit components of the transportation system. Parking demand information is also provided for informational purposes. CEQA requires that an EIR be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences (CEQA Guidelines, 15151). Furthermore, under CEQA, lead agencies are given discretion in selecting appropriate analysis scenarios for the purposes of identifying a project s potential environmental impacts. Lead agencies may elect to forego analyzing the project s potential impacts against an existing condition in favor of a more appropriate future year condition, as long as the lead agency can demonstrate that an analysis based on existing conditions would be uninformative or misleading to decision makers and the public (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 2013). Typically, a baseline plus project condition is appropriate for projects with a relatively short time frame for implementation and a project plus future year is appropriate for longer time frame projections. Analysis against a future year is appropriate for the 2018 LRDP because it is a long range planning document for which the implementation of future projects to accommodate anticipated growth (many of which are not specifically identified in the Plan or known at this time) will occur over a longer time period and will not occur in the near-term due to funding and other constraints. Also, the 2018 LRDP plans for a level of growth that may or may not occur within the plan horizon year (2030). Therefore, the analysis of the 2018 LRDP plus the baseline would analyze a scenario that will not occur and will present misleading information about the impacts of the project. In contrast, the timing for the specific projects identified in this EIR (Orchard Park Redevelopment and West Village Expansion) is more certain. Therefore, an analysis of these projects against the baseline condition would have some level of informational value and is contained in this EIR. Considering these factors, chose to evaluate potential project impacts based on the following analysis scenarios Baseline plus West Village Expansion 2016 Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment 2030 no project 2030 plus 2018 LRDP 2036 (Cumulative) no project 2036 (Cumulative) plus 2018 LRDP Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

37 considered evaluating potential transportation impacts for a 2016 Baseline plus 2018 LRDP analysis scenario. This approach would assume the full buildout of the student, employee, and on-campus housing growth identified in the 2018 LRDP through the academic year, added to the existing campus conditions and local and regional land use and transportation conditions present during the 2016 base year. This type of approach would impose potential project impacts on an existing condition that would not occur because all growth under the plan will not and cannot occur in that timeframe and local/regional traffic conditions will continue to change from Within the context of the 2018 LRDP, future campus conditions and local/regional conditions are not fixed at the moment of the 2016 baseline conditions and these transportation conditions (particularly traffic levels and commuter locations and routes) will continuously evolve. Therefore, the results from the analysis of this scenario would provide no informational value Regional growth, changes in traffic volumes and patterns, and changes in transportation systems due to planned improvements are expected to depart from the current conditions represented in the 2016 baseline year during the long-term implementation of the 2018 LRDP. Factors such as these, projected over a period of more than 12 years, are critical to understanding the actual effects on the environment of approving or disapproving the proposed 2018 LRDP project. This is the type of information decision makers and the public need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the 2018 LRDP project and is presented in the 2030 plus 2018 LRDP scenario. It is unreasonable to expect that a scenario would occur where the entirety of student, employee, and on-campus housing growth associated with the 2018 LRDP would exist in the context of underlying local and regional land use and transportation system conditions present during the 2016 base year. Evaluating such an analysis scenario would provide misleading information, particularly since it would not account for other reasonably foreseeable local and regional land use and transportation system changes that are expected to occur alongside the implementation of the 2018 LRDP (e.g., the Richards Boulevard/I-80 interchange improvements). For, the choice for traffic analysis was to either consider future conditions caused by the proposed 2018 LRDP compared to a 2030 No Project scenario or compared to Baseline 2016 Conditions or to provide analysis for both future conditions: 2018 LRDP compared to No Project in 2030 scenario and 2018 LRDP compared to Baseline 2016 Conditions. In consideration that the baseline factors are expected to change and that the projection period extends for more than 10 years, determined that a 2016 Baseline plus 2018 LRDP scenario would be inappropriate for the purposes of identifying potential 2018 LRDP-related transportation impacts. Instead, use of a 2030 analysis year for a no project and plus 2018 LRDP scenario comparison provides a more realistic approach for isolating the potential transportation impacts associated with the 2018 LRDP at a planning level. Since the proposed West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment components are planned to occur in the near-term, determined that a comparison against 2016 Baseline conditions is appropriate. While the projects are evaluated in independent analysis scenarios under 2016 Baseline conditions, they could potentially undergo a similar construction schedule and open for operation at the same time. Although this EIR does not include a single 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment analysis scenario, potential transportation impacts associated with such a scenario are analyzed and reported under the individual impact analyses for each component. The individual impact analyses contain several overlapping study facilities, however, the combined effects of a 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment scenario would not present any greater impacts or necessitate any mitigation measures other than those identified in the separate 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion and 2016 Baseline plus Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

38 Orchard Park Redevelopment analysis scenarios. The mitigation measures described in this EIR for either Orchard Park Redevelopment component or West Village Expansion component would be adequate for a scenario where the Orchard Park Redevelopment component and West Village Expansion component cause impacts during the same time period. The adequacy of impact analysis, disclosure, and mitigation when considered separately is specific to the circumstances of the Orchard Park Redevelopment component and West Village Expansion component because, although the overlapping study facilities would cause impacts necessitating mitigation, these facilities would not need doubling of mitigation in order to adequately function (e.g.: once a sidewalk is provided, the sidewalk could function for all of the pedestrian volumes expected from both projects). Mitigation singularly for one of the projects would be adequate for the other project to proceed without a need for additional mitigation. This circumstance and the certainty for this methodology approach was validated by comparing the listed impacts and mitigation for the Orchard Park Redevelopment component and the West Village Expansion component to the 2030 plus 2018 LRDP scenario that includes the Orchard Park Redevelopment component, the West Village Expansion component, and all of the other growth anticipated from the 2018 LRDP and regional growth through This comparison as a test scenario reveals no additional impacts in the study area for the Orchard Park Redevelopment component and West Village Expansion component serving to confirm that singular mitigation for one of the projects would be adequate to address the transportation impacts of both the Orchard Park Redevelopment component and the West Village Expansion component. In addition to the 2030 analysis scenario, 2036 is included as an analysis year since it represents cumulative conditions in addition to being the horizon year for the SACOG MTP/SCS. In this regard, the cumulative condition in 2036 provide the EIR analysis with a more comprehensive view of how related projects and growth, in a true cumulative sense, could interact with the impacts of the proposed 2018 LRDP. Table below contains the land use inputs associated with each analysis scenario. Table Scenario 2018 LRDP Student, Employee, and On-Campus Housing Growth Forecasts Students Los Rios Community College Total Employees Residence Halls (Students) On-Campus Housing Apartments (Students) Employee Housing (Employees) 2016 Baseline 33, ,440 12,365 5,488 4, Baseline plus West Village Expansion 2016 Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment 33, ,440 12,365 5,488 8, , ,440 12,365 5,488 5, No Project 33,825 1,230 35,055 15,340 6,263 4, Plus 2018 LRDP 39,000 1,230 40,230 14,500 6,576 11, (Cumulative) No Project 33,825 1,845 35,670 15,340 6,263 4, (Cumulative) Plus 2018 LRDP Source: ,000 1,845 40,845 14,500 6,576 11, Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

39 Transportation Network Improvements The 2018 LRDP does not propose any substantive changes to the campus transportation network, so no changes were made to the baseline 2016 network (The 2018 LRDP proposes a minor realignment of Old Davis Road south of Arboretum Drive to accommodate the new Solano Gateway development. This change would not materially alter the function or operations of Old Davis Road or connecting transportation facilities.). Modifications to the off-campus transportation network were included for 2030 and 2036 conditions analysis based on improvement projects that were determined to be reasonably foreseeable as determined by input from City of Davis staff and staff (Hess, pers. comm., 2018). Their input considered available funding, inclusion in the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS, and implementation readiness. Details of these modifications are provided in Table Table and 2036 Transportation Network Modifications Transportation Network Modification I-80 Construct high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes between Richards Boulevard and West Sacramento I-80/Richards Boulevard Interchange Eliminate loop ramps and reconstruct the interchange as a tight diamond configuration and close the westbound I-80 off-ramp to Olive Drive Included in 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Anderson Road Reduce from 4 to 2 lanes between Covell Boulevard and Russell Boulevard Yes Yes No 2 Covell Boulevard Widen from 2 to 4 lanes between Shasta Drive and Denali Drive No No Yes Mace Boulevard Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 2 between Blue Oak Place and Cowell Boulevard Yes Yes Yes 5 th Street Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 2 between L Street and Pole Line Road Yes Yes No 2 Notes: 1 The closure of Olive Drive is not included in the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS. This is a project element that is still under development of as part of the project development process for the interchange modifications. 2 These projects are not included in the SACOG MTP/SCS since the plan only includes projects of regional significance. However, these projects will alter travel patterns within the City of Davis roadway network, and are therefore important to include for travel demand forecasting purposes. Source: 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS,, and City of Davis Traffic Forecasts The land use and transportation network inputs described above were used to forecast travel demand changes associated with the proposed project. For purposes of analyzing VMT, a modified version of the regional Sacramento Regional Travel Demand Model (SACMET) model was applied. The SACMET model was originally developed by SACOG and includes a base year of 2012 and a forecast year of 2036 based on the SACOG 2016 MTP/SCS. Modifications were made to the input roadway network and traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure within the project study area to more accurately reflect the proposed project and it surroundings as well as to allow generated vehicle trips to be isolated. In addition to the modified SACMET model, a local area travel demand model (Local Model) covering and the City of Davis was developed. This model was used to forecast traffic volumes for the study area roadway segments and intersections. It has a base year of 2016 and forecast years of 2030 and SACMET Prior to applying the SACMET model to generate VMT forecasts, a validation check was performed of the model s 2012 traffic volume estimates at the vehicle gateways to. This check revealed the model overestimated observed 2016 traffic counts by about 62 percent. Therefore, the model s forecasts of VMT from the TAZs representing was adjusted by multiplying the raw model Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

40 outputs by a factor of 1/1.62. Other refinements or adjustments that were made as part of modifying the model for this project are listed below. A 2030 version of the SACMET model did not exist so interpolation was used to create the land use, demographic, and socioeconomic inputs for a 2030 forecast year. The roadway network changes listed above for 2030 were incorporated by modifying the 2036 roadway network inputs with the exception of the Anderson Road, 5 th Street, and Olive Drive modifications. One of the main intents behind developing the VMT information is as an input to the air quality and GHG emissions impact analysis. Part of air quality and GHG analysis is to evaluate consistency with the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS. As such, the modified SACMET model changes were limited to those that would be consistent with the MTP/SCS. All of the changes above were included in the local model. TAZs were split and centroids modified to better represent the campus. TAZs are polygons used to subdivide the SACOG region into small units of analysis typically the size of Census block groups. Centroids represent small minor roadways and driveways that provide access to the larger collector and arterial roadway system. Extra distance was appended to trips destined towards the Bay Area that leave the model boundary at Solano County to minimize the potential to underestimate project generated VMT. Additional model scenarios were run to isolate VMT associated with Los Rios Community College students. The Los Rios Community College shares space in the West Village area and is part of the same TAZ. Therefore, multiple model runs were conducted with and without the Los Rios Community College students to discern their effect on generated VMT. The VMT forecasts from the modified SACMET model are summarized in Tables and Table contains forecasts of total VMT for typical weekday conditions for the entire SACOG region. As such, it captures the project s effect on VMT since VMT is a composite metric that best measures vehicle travel across geographic areas. Table isolates the VMT associated with trips to and from and represents the project generated VMT for a typical weekday. This VMT is different than the commute VMT discussed above, which only captured the commute trips to campus. While any increase in population, employment, or students will result in higher levels of project generated VMT, total VMT across the region may increase or decrease depending on how a project influences travel associated with adjacent and nearby areas. Table VMT Metric 2018 LRDP Effect on Regional VMT Weekday Conditions 2016 Baseline 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion 2016 Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment 2030 No Project 2030 plus 2018 LRDP 2036 (Cumulative) No Project 2036 (Cumulative) plus 2018 LRDP Total SACOG Region VMT 56,825,300 56,833,500 56,798,600 72,370,400 72,472,200 76,680,900 76,728,400 Difference (From Baseline) -- +8,200-26, ,545, ,646, ,855, ,903,100 Difference (From No Project) , ,500 Source: Modified SACMET Model 2016 MTP/SCS Version Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

41 Table LRDP Generated VMT Weekday Conditions VMT Metric 2016 Baseline 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion 2016 Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment 2030 No Project 2030 plus 2018 LRDP 2036 (Cumulative) No Project 2036 (Cumulative) plus 2018 LRDP Project Generated VMT 1 910, , ,900 1,048,400 1,160,000 1,048,300 1,159,000 Difference (From Baseline) , , , , , ,600 Difference (From No Project) , ,700 VMT/Employee VMT/Student VMT/Service population Notes: 1 Los Rios Community College Students contribute approximately 4,400 VMT under 2030 and 2036 conditions. Source: Modified SACMET Model 2016 MTP/SCS Version As shown in the tables above, the 2018 LRDP student and employment growth will increase VMT generated by travel to and from campus for all scenarios. With the exception of housing added at Orchard Park, all of the analysis scenarios also have the effect of increasing regional VMT compared to baseline or no project conditions. One additional point of comparison is the total VMT associated with the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS under 2036 conditions. The MTP/SCS includes a higher level of student and employee growth at under 2036 conditions (see Table below). This higher level of growth results in a comparable total VMT for the region of 76,863,900 under the MTP/SCS, which is 135,500 higher than the 2036 plus 2018 LRDP scenario. As explained above, this information on VMT is provided for information and disclosure purposes only with no significance determination. Potential environmental effects of the VMT changes are addressed in the air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas chapters of this document. Local Model The Local Model was developed in close coordination with the City of Davis and. The model area is shown in Exhibit along with the TAZ system used to spatially organize the land use inputs. The coordination effort included the following elements of model development. TAZ system The TAZ development included reviewed by City and staff to ensure sufficient detail for both existing and new growth areas. Land use inputs Inputs were initially obtained from the SACOG 2012 parcel database used in developing regional model inputs for the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS. These inputs were reviewed for each TAZ with City and staff to develop a complete inventory representing 2016 conditions, which is the model s base year. Similarly, land use forecasts for 2030 and 2036 conditions were developed in cooperation with City staff and staff. Land use forecasts for 2030 and 2036 were based on future land use changes throughout the region projected in the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS. The land use forecasts were refined based on input from City staff and staff according to planned City of Davis General Plan growth, approved development projects, pipeline development projects, and other reasonably foreseeable land development activities. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

42 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR Exhibit : Local Model Area and TAZ System

43 Roadway network inputs The Local Model roadway network was developed from GIS data representing local, collector, arterial, and freeway functional classifications. Input data included the number of travel lanes and free-flow travel speeds based on the previous /City of Davis Local Model developed for the 2003 LRDP update, plus new data from field observations and Google Maps imagery. Capacity inputs for each roadway classification was estimated from reference documents including the HCM 6 th Edition and the Travel Demand Forecasting: Parameters and Techniques, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 716, Transportation Research Board, Changes to the roadway networks for future year scenarios were provided by City and staff as noted above. Vehicle trip rates The vehicle trip rates were derived from a variety of sources including the Campus Travel Survey, the California Household Travel Survey, local residential trip generation estimates based on observed traffic counts, and the Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017). The rates were estimated for the following trip purposes. Home-Based Work (HBW): trips between a residence and a workplace Home-Based Shop (HBS): trips between a residence and a retail destination Home-Based School (HBK): trips between a residence and a school (K-12) Home-Based Other (HBO): trips between a residence and any other destination Non-Home-Based (OO): trips that do not begin or end at a residence, such as traveling from a workplace to a restaurant, or from a retail store to a bank College (COLL): trips to and from a Community College (UCD): trips to and from Highway Commercial (HC): trips to and from highway commercial destinations Vehicle trip lengths and external trip patterns The vehicle trip lengths and the proportion of vehicle trips that occur exclusively within the model area versus those that have origins or destinations external to the model area were obtained from the Campus Travel Survey, the California Household Travel Survey and the American Community Survey. This information was extracted for each trip purpose above. Trip traveling through the model area without stopping such as those on I-80, were estimated from the regional SACOG SACSIM model developed for the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS. Trip assignment Trip assignment relies on conventional algorithms that assign trips between origin and destination zones based on travel times that reflect the influence of roadway capacity and speeds. A unique aspect of the assignment process is that generated trips had to be associated with parking areas on and off-campus since that is where trips start and end. These parking areas were mapped in collaboration with staff and iterative testing of the assignment results was used to refine the association. The base year model was calibrated and validated to 2016 Baseline conditions. The validation included static and dynamic tests to verify that the model was appropriately accurate and sensitive within the model area. Specific static validation tests applied to the model and the model performance is summarized in Table Table Local Model Static Validation Summary Static Validation Test Metric Desired Result Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Model volume to count ratio +- 10% Percent of Links within Maximum Desirable Deviation > 75% 87% 83% 89% Correlation Coefficient > Percent Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) < 30% 15% 23% 21% Source: Fehr & Peers Long Range Development Plan EIR

44 Before applying the model for project scenarios especially under 2030 and 2036 conditions, the following model parameters and inputs were adjusted. Internal-External trip balancing Over time, the vehicle trips to campus originating from employees and students living in Davis versus outside of Davis is expected to change due to housing market conditions. Housing supply is predicted to remain tight in Davis with slow turnover. Under 2016 base year conditions, approximately 41 percent of commute trips to campus originated from within Davis and 59 percent from outside of Davis. With housing supply restricted in Davis, staff projected that only 22 percent of future commute trips to campus would originate in Davis with the remaining 78 percent originating outside of Davis. This change was incorporated into the model s distribution of vehicle trips. Trip assignment refinements to parking area association Since related trips start and end in parking areas, any modification to parking supply influences vehicle trip assignment patterns. The following parking changes are anticipated as part of the 2018 LRDP implementation. These changes were incorporated into the model s trip assignment of vehicle trips. Lot 4 all spaces lost due to Environmental Horticulture redevelopment. Lot 6 all spaces lost due to redevelopment east of Mrak Hall. Lot 16 all spaces lost due to Regan Hall redevelopment/expansion. Lot 20 all spaces lost due to Cruess Hall renovation. Lot 21 all spaces lost due to Regan Hall redevelopment/expansion. Lot 22 all spaces lost due to Regan Hall Redevelopment/expansion. Lot 44 all spaces lost due to Infill development for College of Engineering Lot 48 all spaces lost due to redevelopment of Dairy. Lot 5 and Lot 5A are lost, but spaces are relocated along the railroad tracks near Solano Park so the overall number of spaces (about 425 spaces) remains the same for this area. 1,300 additional spaces associated with the West Village Expansion and the West Village double up. 300 additional spaces associated with the Orchard Park Redevelopment. 400 additional spaces associated with new Solano Park / Solano Field housing development. 2,000 additional spaces in new remote parking lot south of I-80 on Old Davis Road. Trip rate and distribution adjustments to account for UC SOV reduction goal Under all 2030 and 2036 conditions, will by complying with the UC SOV trip reduction goal, which requires a 10 percent reduction relative to 2015 SOV commute rates. The 2018 LRDP adopts the UC SOV trip reduction goal and identifies transportation policies that promote SOV trip reduction (e.g., enhanced transit service, expanded active transportation infrastructure). As directed by staff, the model trip rates and trip distribution were adjusted to reflect full compliance with this goal presuming all of the reduction would occur for trips generated by students and employees residing within Davis. The Local Model was applied to generate traffic volume forecast inputs for the analysis intersections and roadway segments for each analysis scenario described above. Separate model runs were performed for each scenario and the model produced volume forecasts were extracted for final adjustments to account for differences between the model s base year volume estimates and observed traffic counts. The adjustment involves isolating the incremental change in volume between the base year model and the future year analysis scenario and adding that difference to the baseline (2016) traffic counts. This adjustment process helps to minimize potential errors in the model s base year estimates and is based on the methodology contained in Analytical Travel Long Range Development Plan EIR

45 Forecasting Approaches for Project-Level Planning and Design, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 765 (Transportation Research Board 2014). Final traffic volumes are presented as part of the roadway operations analysis described in subsequent sections. Campus Travel collects detailed student and employee travel behavior data through its annual CTS. The CTS provides travel characteristic information for students and employees aggregated by population group (freshmen, upperclassmen, graduate students, faculty, and staff) and place of resident (oncampus, West Village, off campus in Davis, and outside Davis). Data from the CTS regarding student and employee mode split, frequency of travel to campus, and residential location was utilized to estimate campus travel for the various 2018 LRDP analysis scenarios. The CTS primarily focuses on questions related to student and employee commute travel to the campus for school or work purposes. The CTS does not provide information about all trips made by student and employees that have origins or destinations on the campus, nor does it provide information about other travelers to and from campus (e.g., visitors, vendors, deliveries). In addition to information provided in the CTS, vehicle roadway counts were conducted in October 2016 to provide baseline data for the EIR. Table summarizes the estimated number of weekday vehicle trips with a central campus origin or destination entering and exiting the UC Davis central campus. Central campus vehicle trip estimates were derived from campus gateway traffic counts conducted in Fall 2016 as well as results from the 2016/17 CTS. The figures reported in Table capture all vehicle travel generated from central campus entering and exiting central campus, including student and employee commute and non-commute trips, visitors, vendors, deliveries, and any other vehicle activity. Table LRDP Vehicle Trips Entering/Exiting Central Campus Weekday Conditions 2016 Baseline 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment No Project 2030 plus 2018 LRDP 2036 (Cumulative) No Project 2036 (Cumulative) plus 2018 LRDP Daily Vehicle Trips 54,120 52,260 53,645 54,750 57,205 54,750 57,205 Difference (From Baseline) -- -1, , ,085 Difference (From No Project) , , Non-resident vehicle trip generation estimate does not reflect UC SOV reduction policy, which was not accomplished during or prior to the 2016 analysis year. Source:, Fehr & Peers 2018 Table summarizes the estimated number of one-way student and employee commute trips to central campus by mode according to information provided in the 2016/17 CTS. The 2030 and 2036 analysis years account for the UC SOV trip reduction policy. While the total number of commute trips to central campus would increase with the implementation of the 2018 LRDP, a significant shift to non-automobile modes of transportation would occur Long Range Development Plan EIR

46 Table Vehicle Trips 2018 LRDP Central Campus One-Way Commute Trips by Mode Weekday Conditions 2016 Baseline 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion (1) 2016 Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment (1) 2030 No Project 2030 plus 2018 LRDP 2036 (Cumulative) No Project 2036 (Cumulative) plus 2018 LRDP Daily Vehicle Trips 12,025 11,095 11,785 11,370 11,190 11,370 11,190 Difference (From Baseline) Difference (From No Project) Transit Trips Daily Transit Trips 6,830 6,010 6,735 7,655 7,335 7,655 7,335 Difference (From Baseline) Difference (From No Project) Bicycle Trips Daily Bicycle Trips 15,650 17,710 15,695 16,590 20,255 16,590 20,255 Difference (From Baseline) -- +2, , ,605 Difference (From No Project) , ,665 Notes: (1) Non-resident vehicle trip generation estimate does not reflect UC SOV reduction policy, which was not accomplished during or prior to the 2016 analysis year. Source:, Fehr & Peers 2018 The forecasts in Tables and do not include the influence of new disruptive trends in transportation that could affect future travel demand. These tables rely on previously observed travel behavior and presumes that behavior continues under future conditions. In reality, a number of trends including transportation network companies (TNCs) and automated vehicles (AVs) could influence how people travel in the future. These trends have not reached a level of maturity to accurately predict the potential effect on future travel; however, many of the trends could result in vehicle travel becoming less expensive and more convenient. As such, vehicle trip activity could increase unless a high level of vehicle sharing occurs. Roadway Operations Roadway operations analysis relies on the methodology described above for baseline conditions. Freeways Similar to 2016 Baseline conditions, the freeway impact analysis relied on SACOG, MTC, and Caltrans analysis and recommendations. The RTP/SCSs govern what is ultimately constructed in each corridor due to their role in the transportation project development process. As transportation projects advance from planning concepts to environmental review and ultimately to final engineering drawings ready for construction, they must be included in the RTP/SCS. These plans are financially constrained through their 20-year planning horizons and also must meet air quality conformity requirements under the federal Clean Air Act and demonstrate how the region will meet SB 375 GHG reduction targets. The SACOG and MTC RTP/SCSs are updated every four years to reflect new information related to population and employment forecasts, revenue changes, new regulations, etc Long Range Development Plan EIR

47 Projects contained in the RTP/SCSs are developed by local, regional, and state agencies and are based on improvement needs within the 20-year planning horizon. The improvement needs are generally driven by planned population and employment growth. For the SACOG region, this means that potential improvement needs for I-80 and SR 113 in the project study area have already been considered by key agencies such as Caltrans and the City of Davis. Further, employment and student growth at was considered in developing the MTP/SCS. Table compares the employment and student growth for between the SACOG MTP/SCS and the proposed 2018 LRDP. Table Campus Growth Summary and Comparison to SACOG MTP/SCS Category Proposed 2018 LRDP SACOG MTP/SCS Change Change Students 33,825 39,000 5,175 33,689 43,810 10,121 Employees 12,365 14,500 2,135 21,483 23,791 2,308 Total (Students + Employees) 46,190 53,500 7,310 55,172 67,601 12,429 Source: SACSIM Model 2016 MTP/SCS Version The employment growth in the SACOG MTP/SCS is similar to that anticipated in the 2018 LRDP while student growth is much higher in the MTP/SCS in part due to the additional years of growth in the planning horizon out to This evidence supports a conclusion that growth has already been anticipated as part of developing regionally supported improvements to I-80 and SR 113 that are contained in the MTP/SCS. For the MTC region, Yolo County is not included as part of the planning area but growth in the overall SACOG region is a factor in forecasting future travel demand on I-80. Coordination occurs between SACOG and MTC regarding this information. Hence, the MTC RTP/SCS would also consider growth to the extent it is part of the regional SACOG forecasts. I-80 The combination of MTC and SACOG growth, including that associated with the proposed 2018 LRDP, will exacerbate the current I-80 performance problems related to slow speeds and unreliable travel times that was described under 2016 Baseline conditions. In response, Caltrans in cooperation with SACOG developed the carpool lane project on I-80 between Davis and downtown Sacramento, which is included in the SACOG MTP/SCS as shown below (SACOG 2016) Long Range Development Plan EIR

48 Caltrans District 3 confirmed that the carpool lane project would extend between Richards Boulevard in Davis to the I-5/US 50 interchange in Sacramento (Smith, pers. comm., 2017). In addition, the SACOG MTP/SCS includes expansion of the Capitol Corridor service from two round trips to ten round trips between Sacramento and Roseville. This expansion would improve the viability of using transit for longer distance trips to/from that would otherwise be using I-80. The Capitol Corridor projects are already programmed according to the SACOG MTP/SCS and the carpool lane project is projected to have sufficient funding for implementation by These projects are not expected to eliminate the LOS F conditions on I-80 in the study area but will reduce the severity of congestion and provide more reliable travel options for those opting to carpool or use Capitol Corridor service. A review of similar information for I-80 in Solano County (e.g., (I-80 East Corridor System Management Plan District 4 [Caltrans June 2017]) revealed evidence that slow freeway speeds (i.e., LOS F conditions) near the Yolo/Solano County line in the eastbound direction during the evening peak period will continue to occur under 2030 conditions (see graphic below). Caltrans analysis of this location contained in the I-80 East Corridor System Management Plan District 4, Caltrans, June 2017 does not include specific improvements to address this problem location. The plan does include the planned expansion of I-80 between Dixon and Davis, which is a location that could experience an increase in traffic from the proposed 2018 LRDP implementation Long Range Development Plan EIR

49 2018 Long Range Development Plan EIR

50 Despite this information, MTC did not include any capacity expansion projects for the I-80 corridor in eastern Solano County as part Plan Bay Area As such, regional growth (including growth at UC Davis) will likely exacerbate the congested conditions previously identified by Caltrans. SR 113 For SR 113, Caltrans has not recommended any substantial improvements for the SACOG MTP/SCS within the 2018 LRDP EIR study area. According to analysis contained in Table 12 (see below) of the Transportation Concept Report State Route 113, District 3 (Caltrans July 24, 2014), SR 113 between Davis and Woodland is projected to operate acceptably at LOS C or better through horizon year (HY) Intersections For the Baseline and 2030 scenarios, a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were developed for each study intersection listed above. The turning movement forecasts for each intersection are contained in Appendix H. These forecasts were used to calculate a.m. and p.m peak hour vehicle LOS for the study intersections. Results are summarized and compared to 2016 Baseline conditions in Table Exhibit compares the intersection LOS results for 2030 no project and plus project conditions Long Range Development Plan EIR

51 10 Russell Boulevard/California Avenue SSSC City of Davis 3 (11) A (B) 3 (9) A (A) 4 (14) A (B) 3 (11) A (B) 4 (18) A (C) 11 Russell Boulevard/Oak Avenue Signal City of Davis 8 A 12 B 9 A 14 B 10 B 61 E 12 Russell Boulevard/College Park/Howard Way Signal City of Davis 16 B 22 C 20 C 26 C 24 C 68 E 13 Russell Boulevard/A Street Signal City of Davis 13 B 12 B 13 B 18 B 14 B 44 D 14 Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street Signal City of Davis 25 C 21 C 27 C 26 C 29 C 81 F 15 Orchard Road/Orchard Park Drive AWSC 8 A 7 A 8 A 7 A 8 A 8 A 16 Orchard Road/La Rue Road Signal 22 C 28 C 21 C 30 C 27 C 42 D 17 Hutchison Drive/County Road 98 SSSC Yolo County 4 (16) A (C) 5 (14) A (B) 5 (15) A (C) 5 (14) A (B) 5 (16) A (C) 6 (15) A (C) 18 Hutchison Drive/Hopkins Road SSSC Yolo County 3 (10) A (A) 5 (10) A (A) 3 (10) A (A) 5 (10) A (A) 3 (10) A (A) 5 (10) A (B) 19 Hutchison Drive/Sage Street Roundabout 4 A 4 A 4 A 4 A 7 A 8 A Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR (>120) E (F) Table Study Intersection Operations 2016 Baseline, 2030 No Project, and 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions No. Study Intersection Control Type Jurisdiction 2016 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Russell Boulevard/County Road 98 AWSC Yolo County 10 A 9 A 10 B 10 A 10 B 10 A 2 Russell Boulevard/Arlington Boulevard SSSC City of Davis 3 (27) A (D) 4 (32) A (D) 3 (26) A (D) 4 (41) A (E) 3 (26) A (D) 5 (44) A (E) 3 Russell Boulevard/Eisenhower Street SSSC City of Davis 1 (27) A (D) 1 (20) A (C) 1 (22) A (C) 1 (22) A (C) 1 (22) A (C) 1 (23) A (C) 4 Russell Boulevard/Arthur Street Signal Caltrans 20 C 16 B 19 B 17 B 20 C 16 B 5 6 Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Southbound (SB) Ramps Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Northbound (NB) Ramps Signal Caltrans 7 A 6 A 9 A 10 B 8 A 9 A Signal Caltrans 18 B 33 C 20 C 62 E 21 C 67 E 7 Russell Boulevard/Orchard Park Drive SSSC City of Davis 3 (22) A (C) 4 (28) A (D) 4 (36) A (E) 6 (45) A (E) 7 (63) A (F) 12 (94) A (F) 8 Russell Boulevard/Sycamore Lane Signal City of Davis 20 C 20 C 20 C 23 C 20 C 22 C 9 Russell Boulevard/Anderson Road/La Rue Road Signal City of Davis 24 C 27 C 25 C 31 C 24 C 53 D

52 A.M. Peak Hour 21 Hutchison Drive/SR 113 NB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 5 (29) A (D) 3 (17) A (C) 4 (27) A (D) 5 (24) A (C) 14 (82) B (F) P.M. Peak Hour Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR 118 (>120) F (F) Table Study Intersection Operations 2016 Baseline, 2030 No Project, and 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions 2016 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP No. Study Intersection Control Type Jurisdiction A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 20 Hutchison Drive/SR 113 SB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 12 (33) B (D) 2 (18) A (B) 10 (30) B (D) 2 (24) A (C) 22 (117) C (F) 9 (>120) A (F) 22 Hutchison Drive/Health Sciences Drive Signal 7 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 8 A 8 A 23 Hutchison Drive/Extension Center Drive SSSC 2 (30) A (D) 2 (30) A (D) 2 (29) A (D) 2 (35) A (D) 2 (37) A (E) 3 (66) A (F) 24 Hutchison Drive/La Rue Road Signal 16 B 21 C 16 B 22 C 19 B 44 D 25 Hutchison Drive/Dairy Road Signal 19 B 19 B 18 B 20 B 19 B 22 C 26 Hutchison Drive/Kleiber Hall Drive AWSC 10 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A 27 Third Street/A Street AWSC City of Davis 10 A 10 A 9 A 10 A 9 A 10 A 28 Third Street/B Street Signal City of Davis 8 A 10 A 9 A 11 B 10 A 12 B 29 Second Street/B Street SSSC City of Davis 2 (16) A (C) 4 (23) A (C) 4 (23) A (C) 6 (39) A (E) 4 (28) A (D) 7 (49) A (E) 30 First Street/A Street SSSC City of Davis 4 (15) A (C) 6 (14) A (B) 7 (21) A (C) 31 First Street/B Street AWSC City of Davis 14 B 13 B 18 C 21 C 23 C 27 D 32 First Street/D Street Signal City of Davis 10 B 40 D 20 B 75 E 26 C 103 F 33 First Street/E Street/Richards Boulevard Signal City of Davis 26 C 42 D 27 C 44 D 28 C 54 D 34 Richards Boulevard/Olive Drive Signal City of Davis 15 B 44 D 36 D 41 D 37 D 41 D Richards Boulevard/I-80 Westbound (WB) Ramps Richards Boulevard/I-80 Eastbound (EB) Ramps 64 (>120) F (F) 11 (31) A (D) >120 (>120) Free Caltrans 2 (3) A (A) 3 (7) A (A) 47 D 52 D 57 E 67 E Signal Caltrans 29 C 42 D 25 C 27 C 25 C 35 D 37 Richards Boulevard/Research Park Drive Signal City of Davis 27 C 33 C 29 C 32 D 30 C 34 C 38 Hutchison Drive/Old Davis Road AWSC 9 A 28 D 17 C 76 F 29 D >120 F F (F)

53 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 39 Arboretum Drive/Old Davis Road AWSC 7 A 21 C 9 A 58 F 17 C 103 F 40 La Rue Road/Garrod Drive SSSC 2 (10) A (B) 4 (15) A (C) 2 (10) A (A) 4 (14) A (B) 2 (10) A (A) 4 (16) A (C) 41 La Rue Road/Dairy Road SSSC 1 (19) A (C) 1 (17) A (C) 1 (16) A (C) 2 (18) A (C) 1 (17) A (C) 2 (20) A (C) 42 La Rue Road/Bioletti Way SSSC 1 (14) A (B) 3 (15) A (C) 2 (15) A (C) 4 (19) A (C) 2 (19) A (C) 4 (23) A (C) 43 Old Davis Road/Alumni Lane AWSC 8 A 11 B 10 B >120 F 12 B >120 F 44 Old Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive Signal 15 C 14 B 15 C >120 F 17 C >120 F 45 Old Davis Road/Hilgard Lane SSSC 2 (11) A (B) 5 (14) A (B) 2 (13) A (B) >120 F 2 (16) A (C) 2. Signals, all-way stops and roundabouts: LOS based on average control delay in seconds. Side street stop controlled intersections: LOS given for the average intersection delay followed by the worst side-street movement in parentheses. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR >120 (>120) F (F) Table Study Intersection Operations 2016 Baseline, 2030 No Project, and 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions No. Study Intersection Control Type Jurisdiction 2016 Baseline 2030 No Project 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 46 Old Davis Road/California Avenue Roundabout 27 D 8 A 78 F >120 F 108 F >120 F 47 Old Davis Road/I-80 WB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 4 (13) A (B) 1 (9) A (A) 6 (14) A (B) 48 Old Davis Road/I-80 EB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 6 (9) A (A) 5 (11) A (B) 10 (17) B (C) Notes: 1. Traffic Control: AWSC = all-way stop control; SSSC = side street stop control; Signal = traffic signal. 90 (>120) 104 (>120) F (F) F (F) 36 (55) 22 (42) E (F) C (E) >120 (>120) >120 (>120) F (F) F (F) Bold and grey text indicates study intersections that exceed acceptable LOS thresholds. Source: Fehr & Peers 2017.

54 Exhibit : 2030 No Project and 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

55 As shown in Table , the First Street/D Street intersection operates at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under 2030 plus 2018 LRDP conditions. While the City of Davis allows LOS F, a significant impact occurs if the intersection also experiences an increase in delay of greater than 10 percent. For ramp terminal intersections, off-ramp queues were also evaluated against available ramp storage under the 2030 scenarios since these scenarios have the highest peak hour volumes. The results are summarized in Table These results reveal that sufficient storage is available to accommodate projected queue lengths. Table Intersection Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Southbound (SB) Off-Ramp Russell Boulevard/SR 113 Northbound (NB) Off-ramp Hutchison Drive/ SR 113 SB Off-ramp Hutchison Drive/ SR 113 NB Off-ramp Richards Boulevard/ I-80 Westbound (WB) Off-ramp Richards Boulevard/ I-80 Eastbound (EB) Off-ramp Old Davis Road/ I-80 WB Off-ramp Old Davis Road/ I-80 EB Off-ramp Notes: Off-Ramp Intersection Queueing Evaluation No Project and 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions Maximum Storage No Project 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP A.M. Peak Hour Queue 2 P.M. Peak Hour Queue Maximum Storage 1 A.M. Peak Hour Queue P.M. Peak Hour Queue 1, , , ,030 1, ,040 1, , , , , ,225 1,075 1,025 1, , , , , , Maximum storage is measured from the stop bar to the off-ramp gore point with the mainline. 2. Peak hour queue is based on the average maximum queue during the hour. Source: Fehr & Peers 2018 Roadway Segments For 2036 (cumulative) conditions, the analysis focuses on roadway segments instead of intersections. Accounting for two decades of change is possible using the models, but the accuracy for a forecast at the scale of an individual intersection is highly uncertain. The CEQA Guidelines [Section 15130(b)] allow for less detailed analysis for cumulative conditions and to avoid speculation [Sections (f)(5), 15145, and 15384(a)] in the forecasts and impact analysis. Travel forecasting models are not accurate enough to reliably predict intersection turning movement volumes almost 20 years into the future and it would be speculative to perform this type of forecast without recognizing that historical measurement of forecasting accuracy at even larger physical area scales is approximately plus or minus 40 percent (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2013). As such, the cumulative impacts rely on roadway segment analysis to Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

56 recognize the limitation of the travel forecasting models. Roadway segment analysis is sufficient to determine the probable number of through lanes on major roadways. This information is sufficient to also determining the number of turn lanes at intersections by applying a template approach. The maximum number of left-turn and through lanes is controlled by the number of approaching and receiving through lanes on each roadway while exclusive right-turn lanes are limited to a single lane to avoid sight distance problems for pedestrian/bicycle crossings. Table contains the a.m. and p.m. peak hour roadway segment volumes and LOS for 2036 (cumulative) no project and plus project conditions. Bicycle Facilities The potential impact to bicycle facilities was evaluated based on whether the proposed project would physically disrupt an existing facility or interfere with the implementation of a planned facility. In addition, the proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would create potential conflicts with applicable policies, plans, or programs (as defined in the regulatory setting above) supporting bicycle use such that the conflict could reduce bicycle trips or increase conflicts between bicyclists or other modes. Future bicycle travel was estimated based on information contained in the Campus Travel Survey, current bicycle counts, bicycle collision history, and proposed changes to campus development patterns that would alter bicycle travel demand. Generally, the proposed increase in UC Davis students and employees coupled with the addition of significant on-campus housing capacity would result in increased bicycle activity on the campus. Because the decision to travel by bicycle corresponds with the length of a trip, consideration of the residence locations of students and employees relative to campus is a key factor in estimating future bicycle travel, particularly the following major trends: Increased On-Campus Housing. The increased percentage of total students residing on campus would contribute to significantly increased bicycle activity on campus due to the high bicycle mode share for on-campus student residents. According to the Campus Travel Survey, 69 percent and 45 percent of students residing on central campus and in West Village currently commute by bicycle, respectively. Similar mode shares would apply to the 8,513 new campus student residents. Decreased Off Campus in Davis Student and Employee Residents. An anticipated effect of increased on-campus housing is a shift of student residents from housing located within the City of Davis. The proposed additional on-campus housing capacity exceeds the anticipated number of new students, therefore, expects that the new on-campus housing would accommodate new students as well as existing students who would otherwise live off campus. Approximately 43 percent of existing students residing off campus in Davis commute by bicycle, so a commensurate decrease in commute bicycle trips between campus and Davis residential neighborhoods would be expected. Due to anticipated future local housing market trends, expects that the future percentage of employees residing outside of Davis will increase compared to existing conditions. This is largely due to the limited supply of new housing in the Davis community. External housing locations, including Woodland, West Sacramento, and Dixon, are located more than five miles from campus and require travel on freeways or county roads to access campus. Therefore, it is expected that the anticipated shift of employee residents outside of Davis would result in a decrease in employees commuting to and from campus by bicycle. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

57 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR Table Study Roadway Segment Operations 2016 Baseline, 2036 No Project, and 2036 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions No. Study Intersection Functional Classification (# of Lanes) 1 Jurisdiction 2016 Baseline 2036 No Project 2036 Plus 2018 LRDP A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Two- Way Volume LOS Two-Way Volume LOS Two-Way Volume LOS Two-Way Volume LOS A.M. Peak Hour Two- Way Volume LOS P.M. Peak Hour 1 County Road 98: north of Hutchison Drive Highway (2) Yolo County 370 C 415 C 400 C 440 C 400 C 430 C 2 County Road 98: south of Putah Creek Highway (2) Yolo County 230 C 295 C 240 C 290 C 240 C 310 C 3 Russell Boulevard: Arlington Boulevard to SR 113 Two- Way Volume Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,160 C 1,140 C 1,210 C 1,230 C 1,220 C 1,260 C 4 Russell Boulevard: SR 113 to La Rue Road Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,390 C 1,605 C 1,830 C 2,020 C 1,810 C 2,050 C 5 Russell Boulevard: La Rue Road to California Avenue Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,270 C 1,800 C 1,670 C 2,250 D 1,840 C 2,560 D 6 Russell Boulevard: California Avenue to A Street Arterial (4) City of Davis 1,165 C 1,705 C 1,570 C 2,140 D 1,770 C 2,490 D 7 La Rue Road: south of Russell Boulevard Arterial (4) 725 C 1,030 C 710 C 1,060 C 1,030 C 1,590 C 8 La Rue Road: Orchard Park Drive to Hutchison Drive Arterial (4) 660 C 735 C 670 C 760 C 880 C 1,130 C 9 La Rue Road: Garrod Drive to Dairy Road Collector (2) 610 D 525 C 630 D 570 D 650 D 590 D 10 California Avenue: south of Russell Boulevard Collector (2) 315 C 235 C 320 C 250 C 380 C 340 C 11 Howard Way: south of Russell Boulevard Collector (2) 505 C 530 C 500 C 530 C 510 C 530 C 12 A Street: First Street to Russell Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 145 C 205 C 170 C 220 C 180 C 320 C 13 Old Davis Road: south of First Street Collector (2) 485 C 610 D 800 D 1,090 E 910 D 1,250 F 14 First Street: A Street to Richards Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 695 D 690 D 970 E 930 D 980 E 980 E 15 Hutchison Drive: west of SR-113 Arterial (4) 570 C 675 C 780 C 970 C 1,440 C 2,000 C 16 Hutchison Drive: east of SR-113 Arterial (4) 1,365 C 1,255 C 1,510 C 1,580 C 1,750 C 1,960 C 17 Old Davis Road: east of Alumni Lane Collector (2) 425 C 540 C 680 D 970 E 720 D 1,030 E 18 Old Davis Road: north of I-80 Collector (2) 895 D 800 D 1,190 E 1,150 E 1,260 F 1,240 F 19 Old Davis Road: south of I-80 Highway (2) 110 C 95 C 130 C 110 C 200 C 210 C LOS

58 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR Table Study Roadway Segment Operations 2016 Baseline, 2036 No Project, and 2036 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions No. Study Intersection Functional Classification (# of Lanes) 1 Jurisdiction 2016 Baseline 2036 No Project 2036 Plus 2018 LRDP A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Two- Way Volume LOS Two-Way Volume LOS Two-Way Volume LOS Two-Way Volume LOS A.M. Peak Hour Two- Way Volume LOS P.M. Peak Hour 20 Sycamore Lane: south of Covell Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 330 C 420 C 360 C 520 C 360 C 540 C 21 Sycamore Lane: north of Russell Boulevard Collector (2) City of Davis 555 C 590 D 530 C 560 C 520 C 550 C 22 Anderson Road: south of Covell Boulevard Arterial (2) City of Davis 780 C 795 C 900 C 970 C 890 C 950 C 23 Anderson Road: north of Russell Boulevard Arterial (2) City of Davis 725 C 860 C 590 C 670 C 630 C 750 C 24 F Street: north of 5th Street Arterial (2) City of Davis 390 C 565 C 400 C 610 C 420 C 600 C 25 Russell Boulevard: west of Arlington Boulevard Arterial (2) City of Davis 615 C 650 C 660 C 700 C 660 C 730 C 26 Hutchison Drive: east of Hopkins Road Collector (2) 270 C 250 C 300 C 290 C 330 C 320 C 27 Orchard Park Drive: south of Orchard Park Circle Collector (2) 70 C 110 C 50 C 90 C 40 C 90 C 28 5th Street: east of B Street Arterial (2) City of Davis 870 C 1,265 D 1,180 D 1,480 E 1,260 D 1,570 E 29 5th Street: west of Pole Line Road Arterial (2) City of Davis 780 C 975 C 1,310 D 1,400 D 1,320 D 1,420 D 30 Cowell Boulevard: east of Research Park Drive Arterial (2) City of Davis 1,060 D 1,375 D 1,320 D 1,620 E 1,330 D 1,650 E Notes: 1. Arterial, collector, and highway functional classifications are assigned per the relevant physical and operational characteristics described in the Highway Capacity Manual. For analysis purposes, functional classifications assigned to individual study roadway segments may deviate from those established by local jurisdictions. Bold and grey text indicates study roadway segments that exceed acceptable LOS thresholds. Source: Fehr & Peers Two- Way Volume LOS

59 Altogether, it is expected that with the implementation of the 2018 LRDP, daily bicycle commute trips on campus would experience a net increase of up to 29 percent, representing approximately 4,600 bicyclists. This includes an increase of approximately 5,500 bicyclists generated from new student and employee housing on campus, and a decrease of approximately 900 bicyclists commuting between campus and nearby neighborhoods in the City of Davis. Although peak hour bicycle commuting between campus and Davis neighborhoods is expected to decrease, daily bicycle activity between and off campus locations is likely to increase as a result of increased on-campus residents biking to nearby destinations such as downtown Davis and local shopping centers. Anticipated increases in bicycle activity would be concentrated near focal points for students and staff activities, including new on-campus housing developments, existing and new academic and recreational facilities (e.g., classrooms, lecture halls, athletic fields) in the core campus area, and along bicycle facilities connecting activity generators. Exhibit illustrates locations anticipated to experience increased levels of bicycle activity with the implementation of the 2018 LRDP. Since the West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment components would provide approximately two-thirds of the overall proposed on-campus housing growth, a substantial share of the increases in bicycle activity would be concentrated near these project sites. Specific facilities that would accommodate new bicycle trips generated by the West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment components include Orchard Road/Orchard Park Circle (including the SR 113 bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing), Hutchison Drive, Sprocket Bikeway, Russell Boulevard, and Orchard Park Drive, as well as internal circulation facilities within the project sites. While bicycle activity is expected to increase on and surrounding the campus, the 2018 LRDP does not propose any changes to the existing on-campus bicycle network. The proposed West Village Expansion component would include two east-west connectors traversing the north and south sides of the central village green for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. On-street bicycle facilities are not identified on any proposed new roadways. The proposed Orchard Park Redevelopment component would include an off-street bike path that traverses east-west through the project site from Orchard Park Drive to the on-site parking lot. A new bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access route would be provided along the northwest edge of the project site, connecting the Russell Boulevard shared-use path with the larger on-site parking lot. A new north-south bike path would also connect the proposed east-west bike path with Orchard Park Circle. The Orchard Park Redevelopment component also proposes realigning the Russell Boulevard shared-use path at Orchard Park Drive to intersect the roadway at a 90-degree angle. No additional campus-related bicycle facility or demand changes are anticipated between academic year and 2036 (cumulative) conditions. Pedestrian Facilities The potential impact to pedestrian facilities was evaluated based on whether the proposed project would physically disrupt an existing facility or interfere with the implementation of a planned facility. In addition, the proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would create potential conflicts with applicable policies, plans, or programs (as defined in the regulatory setting above) supporting pedestrian travel such that the conflict could reduce walk trips or increase conflicts with other modes. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

60 Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR Exhibit : 2018 LRDP Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity

61 Future pedestrian travel was estimated based on information contained in the Campus Travel Survey and proposed changes to campus development patterns that would alter pedestrian travel demand. Generally, on-campus pedestrian activity is expected to increase alongside student, employee, and on-campus housing growth. Overall, the student and employee total would increase by approximately 7,300 persons, while the number of on-campus residents would increase by approximately 9,000 persons. Due to the highly walkable nature of the campus, every additional student, employee, and resident added to the campus population would generate a variety of on-campus pedestrian trips throughout a typical school day (e.g., walking trips to class, meals, social activities, etc.). The proposed increase in on-campus housing would enable a greater percentage of students and employees to walk to class or work compared to existing conditions. Moreover, increases in transit and vehicle commute trips would generate additional pedestrian trips between campus destinations and on-campus parking and transit facilities, as all transit and vehicle trips begin and end with a pedestrian trip. Altogether, new student and employee growth would generate up to approximately 1,100 new pedestrian commuters (including primary and secondary commute trips) during a typical school day. The majority of new pedestrian commute trips would be generated from on-campus locations rather than nearby City of Davis neighborhoods. Anticipated increases in pedestrian activity would be concentrated near focal points for students and staff activities, including new on-campus housing developments, existing and new academic and recreational facilities in the core campus area, and along pedestrian facilities connecting activity generators. Pedestrian activity would also increase near proposed new parking areas as students and employees walk between their vehicles and campus academic and research facilities. Exhibit illustrates locations anticipated to experience increased levels of pedestrian activity with the implementation of the 2018 LRDP. Facilities likely to accommodate project-specific pedestrian demand associated with the proposed West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment components include Orchard Road/Orchard Park Circle, Hutchison Drive, Russell Boulevard, La Rue Road, and Orchard Park Drive, as well as internal circulation facilities within the project sites. The 2018 LRDP does not propose any changes to the existing on-campus pedestrian network. The site plans for the proposed West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment components include new pedestrian pathways, sidewalks, and crosswalks throughout the project sites. Proposed pedestrian pathways would be provided adjacent to new residential and recreational facilities. No additional campus-related pedestrian facility or demand changes are anticipated between academic year and 2036 (cumulative) conditions. Transit Service and Facilities The potential impact to transit service or facilities was evaluated based on whether the proposed project would physically disrupt an existing facility/service or interfere with the implementation of a planned facility/service. In addition, the proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would create potential conflicts with applicable policies, plans, or programs (as defined in the regulatory setting above) supporting transit such that the conflict could reduce transit trips or increase conflicts with other modes. Future transit demand was estimated based on information contained in the Campus Travel Survey, existing Unitrans ridership, schedule, and routing information, and proposed changes to campus development patterns that would alter transit travel demand. Generally, transit demand is linked to the availability and quality of transit service in combination with travel distance and the Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

62 cost of travel (i.e., passenger fare). Similar to the bicycle travel demand discussion above, transit demand is expected to shift in the future due to on-campus housing growth and other local housing market trends. Demand for Unitrans service within campus is expected to increase due to additional students and employees living on campus, particularly in on-campus housing areas further removed from the core campus (e.g., West Village). West Village Expansion residents would generate additional demand for transit services connecting to the core campus, a connection that is currently provided by Unitrans Route V. If current travel behavior were to continue with the buildout of the West Village Expansion project, approximately nine percent of West Village residents would travel to the core campus by bus, representing approximately 390 new daily passenger boardings. Conversely, the reduction of student and employee residents living off campus in Davis would decrease transit demand for commuters utilizing Unitrans service between campus and neighborhoods in Davis. Demand for intercity bus and rail service, including Yolobus and Capitol Corridor, would increase due to the growth in employees living outside of Davis. Overall, the 2018 LRDP would generate an estimated additional 500 daily passengers commuting to campus by transit. This estimate presumes that future background travel conditions remain relatively constant and do not account for potential changes associated with disruptive trends such as increased use of TNCs, which include UBER and Lyft, AVs, and micro-transit services. Additional transit ridership demand would increase boarding and alighting activity at existing bus stops and transit terminals located on campus, especially the Silo and Memorial Union bus terminals. Similarly, campus-related boarding and alighting activity would increase on Capitol Corridor service provided at the Davis Train Depot. The 2018 LRDP does not propose any changes to the existing on-campus transit service or facilities. Similarly, the West Village Expansion and Orchard Park Redevelopment components do not propose any new or modified transit service or facilities. No additional campus-related transit service/facility or demand changes are anticipated between academic year and 2036 (cumulative) conditions. Parking Parking demand was projected based on information contained in the Campus Travel Survey, current parking supply utilization, and changes to parking supply associated with the 2018 LRDP. Demand estimates do not include the potential influence of disruptive trends such as those mentioned above. TNC and AV effects would generally be expected to reduce future parking demand. Non-resident daily vehicles parking on campus (i.e., commute vehicles) in 2016 was 9,640 while the campus provided approximately 11,200 total non-resident parking spaces. With increased oncampus housing, projected student and employee growth associated with the 2018 LRDP would increase non-resident parking demand to 10,460. The small increase is largely due to the increase in housing on campus. Including the added effect of the UC SOV reduction policy, daily non-resident vehicles parking on campus would decline to approximately 9,130, which is lower than 2016 levels. Table summarizes the anticipated changes in non-resident parking demand for each analysis scenario. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

63 Table Weekday Parking Demand Difference (From Baseline) Difference (From No Project) Non-Resident Parking Demand Estimates Weekday Conditions 2016 Baseline 2016 Baseline plus West Village Expansion Baseline plus Orchard Park Redevelopment No Project 2030 plus 2018 LRDP 2036 (Cumulative) No Project 2036 (Cumulative) plus 2018 LRDP 9,641 8,930 9,450 9,330 9,130 9,330 9, Non-resident parking demand estimate does not reflect UC SOV reduction policy, which was not accomplished by the 2016 analysis year. Source:, Fehr & Peers 2017 The supply of parking spaces would also change. estimates that approximately 675 commuter/visitor spaces would be lost to infill development in the core campus as listed below. Lot 4 all spaces lost due to Environmental Horticulture redevelopment, Lot 6 all spaces lost due to redevelopment east of Mrak Hall, Lot 16 all spaces lost due to Regan Hall redevelopment/expansion, Lot 20 all spaces lost due to Cruess Hall renovation, Lot 21 all spaces lost due to Regan Hall redevelopment/expansion, Lot 22 all spaces lost due to Regan Hall Redevelopment/expansion, Lot 44 all spaces lost due to Infill development for College of Engineering, and Lot 48 all spaces lost due to redevelopment of Dairy. In addition, Lot 5 and Lot 5A are lost, but spaces are relocated along the railroad tracks near Solano Park so the overall number of spaces (about 425 spaces) remains the same for this area. Generally, would only consider the construction of new parking to either offset the loss of existing commuter/visitor parking resulting from campus development, or to accommodate residential parking demand generated by the expansion of on-campus housing. New spaces would only be constructed if needed after TDM strategies are implemented first. Potential new spaces could include the following locations and amounts. West Village Expansion could have 1,000 residential spaces plus the double up (300 spaces) parking, Orchard Park Redevelopment could have 300 residential spaces, Solano Park / Solano Field could have 400 residential spaces, Remote lot south of I-80 could have 2,000 spaces, and Parking Lots 47 and 53 could be converted to structures if needed; each would increase by 750 net new if converted. The net change in spaces could reach up to 4,825 if all new spaces are constructed. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

64 ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER All issues applicable to transportation and circulation listed under the significance criteria above, are evaluated in further detail below. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact : Freeway level of service impacts. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase local and regional vehicle travel, which would contribute to unacceptable LOS F conditions on I-80. This impact would therefore be significant. Portions of I-80 through the study area in Yolo and Solano counties operate at LOS F during peak periods. This has been documented through various Caltrans, SACOG, and MTC studies. Additional employee and student growth on the campus would generate new peak period vehicle trips that would contribute to future LOS F conditions. Mitigation Measure : Implement TDM strategies to reduce vehicle trips on I- 80. shall institute transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to reduce campus-related peak hour vehicle trips on I-80. Effective TDM strategies include those that would reduce commute and business vehicle travel to and from campus on I-80, including increased transit services, carpool incentive programs, flexible work hours, and remote working options. The implementation of TDM strategies would lessen the 2018 LRDP s contribution to unacceptable LOS F conditions on I-80 under 2030 conditions. Significance after Mitigation Implementation of 2018 LRDP Mitigation Measure would reduce vehicle travel to and from campus on I-80. However, the level of delay reduction associated with TDM strategies is uncertain. Caltrans has identified the need for carpool lanes on I-80 between Richards Boulevard in Davis and West Sacramento to accommodate regional traffic growth, which includes the employee and student growth associated with. The carpool lane project has already been incorporated into the 2016 SACOG MTP/SCS and is a fully funded project expected to be implemented by Roadway capacity expansion will lead to induced vehicle travel that will likely offset the short-term congestion relief benefits of the I-80 carpool lanes. Furthermore, LOS F conditions will continue to occur during peak periods on portions of I-80 in Yolo and Solano counties. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact : Intersection level of service impacts. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase local and regional vehicle travel, which would cause unacceptable LOS conditions at select intersections. This impact would therefore be significant. The 2018 LRDP would increase a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle traffic at local intersections throughout the study area under 2030 conditions. At twelve study intersections, the traffic volume increases would cause LOS F conditions and would also increase delay in excess of 10 percent (see Table ). Together, these two criteria constitute a significant impact. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

65 Table No. Unacceptable Study Intersection Operations 2030 Plus 2018 LRDP Conditions Study Intersection Control Type Jurisdiction Sec. A.M. Peak Hour Delay % Change From No Project Conditions LOS Sec. P.M. Peak Hour Delay % Change From No Project Conditions 14 Russell Blvd./Fifth Street/B Street Signal City of Davis 29 +7% C 81 +>100% F 21 Hutchison Dr./SR 113 NB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 14 +>100% B 118 +>100% F (F) 30 First Street/A Street SSSC City of Davis % A >120 +>100% F (F) 32 First Street/D Street Signal City of Davis % C % F 38 Hutchison Drive/Old Davis Road AWSC % D > % F 39 Arboretum Drive/Old Davis Road AWSC % C % F 43 Old Davis Road/Alumni Lane AWSC % B > % F 44 Old Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive Signal % C > % F 45 Old Davis Road/Hilgard Lane SSSC 2 0% A > % F (F) 46 Old Davis Road/California Avenue RAB % F > % F 47 Old Davis Road/I-80 WB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 36 +>100% E >120 +>100% F (F) 48 Old Davis Road/I-80 EB Ramps SSSC Caltrans 22 +>100% C > % F (F) Notes: 1. Traffic Control: AWSC = all-way stop control; SSSC = side street stop control; Signal = traffic signal; RAB = roundabout. 2. Signals, all-way stops, side street stop controlled intersections, and roundabouts: LOS based on average control delay in seconds. Refer to Table for worst side-street movement delay and LOS for side street stop controlled intersections. Bold and grey text indicates study intersections that exceed acceptable LOS thresholds. Source: Fehr & Peers 2017 LOS Mitigation Measure a: Implement TDM strategies to reduce vehicle trips at the SR 113/Hutchison Drive interchange. shall institute programs to reduce the expected commute and business trips utilizing the Hutchison Drive/SR 113 on- and off-ramps as well as strategies to reduce peak hour vehicle trips between the central campus and west campus on Hutchison Drive. Examples include increased transit services, shifting service vehicles to use the Garrod Drive overcrossing of SR 113, promotion of bike use between West Village and the central campus, carpool incentive programs, flexible work hours and remote working options. The growth at West Village accounts for most of the increase (approximately 280 trips) in the stop-controlled northbound left-turn volume during the p.m. peak hour between 2030 no project and 2030 plus 2018 LRDP conditions. This movement is largely responsible for the high intersection delays. These trips tend to be longer distance commute trips using SR 113 and I-80. As such, TDM strategies that increase the seat utilization of existing private vehicles, organized car or vanpools, and public transit services would be the most effective. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

66 Mitigation Measure b: Modify SR 113/Hutchison Drive interchange. Every two years, shall monitor and analyze traffic conditions at the SR 113/Hutchison Drive interchange. Additionally, during its standard environmental review process, shall forecast and analyze traffic conditions at the SR 113/Hutchison Drive interchange for individual development projects proposed under the 2018 LRDP that are expected to affect operations at the interchange. When the SR 113/Hutchison Drive ramp terminal intersections are found to operate below the intersection level of service significance threshold, or when a project-level analysis indicates that the project would cause operations to fall below the intersection level of service significance threshold, the SR 113/Hutchison Drive interchange shall be modified to increase the capacity of the ramp terminal intersections and to modify uncontrolled turning movements that conflict with bicycle and pedestrian movements as specified in WVE Mitigation Measure a. Potential modifications include ramp widening and alignment changes plus the addition of ramp approach turn lanes, traffic signals, or roundabouts. Both ramp terminal intersections meet peak hour signal warrants with the project. Implementation of signals alone would be sufficient to provide acceptable peak hour traffic operations. Since the interchange is owned and operated by Caltrans, any improvements will be subject to Caltrans review, project development procedures, and approval. Mitigation Measure c: Implement TDM strategies to reduce vehicle trips at the First Street/D Street and Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street intersections. The First Street/D Street and Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street intersections and the adjacent intersections are part of the downtown grid street system. This network is limited in terms of physical modification or expansion due to right-of-way constraints. As such, reducing vehicle delays for these intersections will require to implement its TDM program to reduce vehicle travel to and from campus. TDM strategies that shift people from driving to walking and bicycling within the Davis community, particularly TDM efforts that would reduce vehicle travel within the Davis downtown area around the affected intersections, would be effective in this area. Mitigation Measure d: Implement TDM strategies to reduce vehicle trips on Old Davis Road. shall institute TDM strategies to reduce campus-related peak hour commute and business vehicle trips using the segment of Old Davis Road between I-80 and First Street. Examples include increased transit services, shifting the timing of service vehicles from peak periods, promotion of bike use for employees and students during peak periods, management of parking lot access along Old Davis Road, carpool incentive programs, flexible work hours, and remote working options. Mitigation Measure e: Upgrade Old Davis Road between I-80 and First Street to an arterial. Implement 2018 LRDP Mitigation Measure , which will monitor traffic volumes and upgrade the segment of Old Davis Road between I-80 and First Street to arterial status under both 2030 and 2036 plus project conditions. Unacceptable roadway operations can be attributed to substantial growth in on- and off-campus student housing within the immediate vicinity of the affected roadway segment, as well as the incompatibility between the existing roadway segment design and anticipated peak hour vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic demand. These factors would be present under both 2030 and 2036 plus 2018 LRDP conditions. Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

67 Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures a and b would improve operating conditions at the Hutchison Drive/SR 113 NB Ramps intersection by instituting TDM measures and expanding the interchange ramp terminal intersection capacity to better accommodate vehicle traffic demands. The proposed mitigation also accounts for improving the bicycle and pedestrian crossings of the interchange ramp terminal intersections such that the mitigation does not create new impacts for those travel modes. However, the effectiveness of the TDM measures is not known and subsequent vehicle trip reduction effects cannot be guaranteed. Furthermore, while expects to fund the proposed physical improvements to the Hutchison Drive/SR 113 interchange, improvements or modifications are subject to final approval and actions by other public agencies and their implementation cannot be guaranteed. These conditions would cause the impact at this location to remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure c would reduce the significant LOS impact at the First Street/D Street and Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street intersections by reducing vehicle travel demand. However, the level of reduction is uncertain; therefore, the impact at this location would remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures d and e would reduce the significant LOS impact at the Old Davis Road corridor intersections to a less-than-significant level by upgrading the roadway to arterial status to better accommodate vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic demands. Upgrading this segment of Old Davis Road to arterial status would improve p.m. peak hour operations to an acceptable LOS D. The improved roadway segment includes the First Street/A Street, Hutchison Drive/Old Davis Road, Arboretum Drive/Old Davis Road, Old Davis Road/Alumni Lane, Old Davis Road/Mrak Hall Drive, Old Davis Road/Hilgard Lane, Old Davis Road/California Avenue, Old Davis Road/I-80 WB Ramps, and Old Davis Road/I-80 EB Ramps, therefore, this mitigation measure would provide acceptable peak hour traffic operations at the Old Davis Road corridor intersections listed in 2018 LRDP Impact Therefore, the impact at this location would be less-than-significant. As noted above, due to uncertainties regarding the ability for the aforementioned mitigation measures to reduce intersection level of service impacts, impacts at the Hutchison Drive/SR 113 interchange, First Street/D Street, and Russell Boulevard/Fifth Street/B Street intersections would be considered significant and unavoidable. Impact : Impacts to transit service and facilities. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase demand for transit, which may require investments in additional transit service and/or facilities to maintain the level and quality of service necessary to retain and expand ridership. Failure to maintain quality service could lead to losses of ridership and increases in travel by other modes (e.g., automobiles) that could result in environmental effects such as increased emissions. Implementation of the 2018 LRDP would increase automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian trips to, from, and within the campus, which would increase the competition for physical space between the modes to meet both operational and safety objectives related to transit. This impact would therefore be significant. The 2018 LRDP does not include any proposed physical changes to existing transit service or facilities (e.g., bus stop relocation or route realignment). The 2018 LRDP would not interfere with the implementation of planned transit service or facilities identified in the City of Davis General Plan, the City of Davis Short Range Transit Plan, or the Yolobus Short Range Transit Plan. It would also not Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR

68 interfere with planned regional transit projects identified in the SACOG MTP/SCS. The 2018 LRDP emphasizes the need to coordinate with local and regional transportation agencies to support the implementation of transportation demand management strategies, including expanded transit options. student and employee growth resulting from the 2018 LRDP would increase demand for transit serving the campus. An estimated 500 new daily passengers would utilize transit to commute to and from the campus. Historically, has worked with Unitrans staff to refine bus service delivery to match demand. For example, after completion of the initial phases of West Village Expansion, new bus service was introduced to the area and service levels were subsequently increased to match ridership demand. Alongside planned campus growth, the 2018 LRDP does not specify a corresponding expansion of transit service and/or facilities necessary to accommodate additional campus-related transit demand. The City of Davis Short Range Transit Plan identifies an increase in annual Unitrans revenue hours of three percent per year through the 2019/20 fiscal year to accommodate expected campus growth, however, there is no certainty that a sustained rate of service expansion will occur in subsequent years. Without the expansion of transit service and/or facilities, additional ridership demand resulting from the implementation of the 2018 LRDP could exceed applicable transit service standards, including those established for Unitrans in the Short Range Transit Plan. The capacity standard established in the Short Range Transit Plan most directly relates to ridership demand growth, by requiring that Unitrans maintain acceptable loading conditions (fewer than 150 percent of seated capacity) on more than 95 percent of all bus trips and for more than 90 percent of bus passengers. According to the Unitrans General Manager Report for Fiscal Year , Unitrans currently meets the capacity standard, with acceptable loading conditions present on 96.5 percent of all bus trips and for 90.6 percent of bus passengers. However, Unitrans acknowledges that high levels of crowding occur during peak times, which could potentially deter people from riding Unitrans bus service. Unitrans has taken steps to encourage passengers to avoid riding the bus when demand is at its peak. For example, for crowded bus stops and services, the Unitrans website includes notifications suggesting that passengers ride during off-peak times or utilize other modes of travel to campus (see graphic below for Route V service in West Village). Additional demand for Unitrans service generated by the 2018 LRDP would likely exacerbate these overloading issues. An exceedance of established transit service standards would cause transit services to operate below acceptable service level, quality, and/or performance targets, which would be deleterious to the transit customer experience (e.g., chronic overcrowding issues) and potentially deter existing and prospective riders from utilizing transit. Additional automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian trips to, from, and within the campus resulting from the implementation of the 2018 LRDP would be accommodated on existing transportation facilities on and surrounding campus. Additional travel activity could cause crowding Volume Long Range Development Plan EIR