AgdaPkt 2007-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 22 Table 2: Trip General Derived from Gas Sales Volume Estimate ~ourc~: Tax Data 750,000 Gallons/Month Factor . Divide Gallons/Month by 30 to 750,000 Gallons/Month + 30 Days/Month = determine Gallons/Day. Result 25,000 Gallons/Day Factor Divide Gallons/Day by the average 25,000 Gallons/Day + 13.5 Gallons/Fill = fill of 13.5 Gallons to determine Fills/Dav. Result 1,852 Fills/Day Factor Each fill represents 2 trips. 1,852 Fills/Day * 2 = Result 3,704 Daily Trips Factor PM Peak Hour Trips equate to 110% * 3,704 Daily Trips = approximatelv 10% of Daily Trips. Result 370 PM !:,eak Hour Trips Table 3: Comparison of Two Analyses Estimate from Trip Generation Data 390 789,750 Estimate from Sales Tax Methodolo 370 750,000 Relationship 5% variance The conclusions from this analysis are as follows: 1. Using two different types of data generated by two different data sources, gas sales volumes and trip generation are consistent within 5% of each other. 2. The original gas sales volume estimate of 540,000 gallons/month would relate to only 267 PM Peak Hour Trips using this method. Thus, the original gas sales volume would not result in the trip generation level that was used in the traffic study, and as expressed by the public, is too Iowan estimate. 3. The trip generation used in the traffic study could result in even higher sales volume than the City's estimate. The City's sales volume estimate was inflated by 10% to be conservative. Thus, the trip generation estimate is even more conservative than the City's sales volume estimate (more overstating). The second part of the comment is related to the potential impacts of increased gas sales volume on air quality. In general terms, the inputs to the air quality analysis for the operation of the project (as opposed to the construction phase) include the following: new traffic associated with the development including delivery vehicles; emissions from vehicles queued at the gas station; and emissions associated with pumping gas. As discussed above, the increase in estimated gas sales volume did not warrant increasing the trip generation estimate (i.e., the new traffic associated with the project). The original number of truck deliveries, including gasoline tanker trucks, was determined to accurately reflect the number of trucks needed to provide merchandise to the store as well as the estimated higher volume of gasoline; thus, that input to the air quality analysis also did not need to be adjusted. The original queuing analysis was not based on fuel sales volumes, but rather on actual queue waiting times and, thus, it also did not need to be adjusted relative to the increase in estimated sales volume. The increase in 4