Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SSF DowntownStationAreaSpecificPlam SDEIR
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2013102001 Volume I: Draft EIR Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 332 Pine Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94104 October 2014 Draft Contents October 2014 Contents Volume I: Draft EIR Acronyms/Abbreviations .......................................... CHAPTER 1Introduction ................................................... 1.1Purpose and Legal Authority ................................................................ 1-1 1.2Scope of the EIR ................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline ..................................... 1-3 1.3Intended Use of the EIR ................................................................ 1-3 1.4Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ................................................................ 1-4 1.5Environmental Review Process ................................................................ 1-4 1.6Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved ....................................................... 1-7 1.7Document Organization ................................................................. 1-7 1.8References ................................................................ 1-8 CHAPTER 2Summary ........................................................ 2.1Purpose of the Summary ................................................................ 2-1 2.2Introduction ................................................................ 2-1 2.3Summary of Proposed Project ................................................................ 2-1 2.4Classification of Environmental Impacts ................................................................ 2-2 2.5Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................ 2-2 2.6Alternatives ................................................................ 2-3 2.7Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................... 2-4 CHAPTER 3Project Description ............................................ 3.1Existing Project Site Characteristics ................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1Project Location ................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................ 3-1 3.2Project Objectives ................................................................ 3-2 3.3Specific Plan Context and Background ................................................................ 3-5 3.4Project Characteristics ................................................................ 3-5 3.5Project Implementation ................................................................ 3-14 3.6Intended Uses of This EIR ................................................................ 3-14 3.7Proposed Project Alternatives ................................................................ 3-15 3.8Public Actions and Approvals Required ................................................................ 3-16 3.8.1State and Local Agencies ................................................................ 3-16 3.9Cumulative Development Scenario ................................................................ 3-16 3.10References ................................................................ 3-18 CHAPTER 4Environmental Analysis ......................................... 4.0Introduction to the Analysis ................................................................ 4-1 4.1Aesthetics ................................................................ 4.1-1 4.1.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.1-1 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 iii Contents Draft October 2014 4.1.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.1-3 4.1.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.1-8 4.1.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.1-13 4.1.5References ................................................................ 4.1-14 4.2Air Quality................................................................ 4.2-1 4.2.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.2-1 4.2.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.2-6 4.2.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.2-10 4.2.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.2-28 4.2.5References ................................................................ 4.2-30 4.3Cultural Resources ................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.3-1 4.3.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.3-5 4.3.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.3-11 4.3.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.3-16 4.3.5References ................................................................ 4.3-17 4.4Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 4.4-1 4.4.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.4-1 4.4.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.4-9 4.4.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.4-18 4.4.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.4-21 4.4.5References ................................................................ 4.4-27 4.5Land Use/Planning ................................................................ 4.5-1 4.5.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.5-1 4.5.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.5-4 4.5.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.5-9 4.5.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.5-16 4.5.5References ................................................................ 4.5-18 4.6Noise ................................................................ 4.6-1 4.6.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.6-1 4.6.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.6-7 4.6.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.6-11 4.6.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.6-22 4.6.5References ................................................................ 4.6-23 4.7Population/Housing................................................................ 4.7-1 4.7.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.7-1 4.7.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.7-5 4.7.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.7-9 4.7.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.7-12 4.7.5References ................................................................ 4.7-14 4.8Public Services ................................................................ 4.8-1 Fire Protection and Emergency Response............................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.8-1 4.8.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.8-5 4.8.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.8-8 4.8.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.8-10 4.8.5References ................................................................ 4.8-10 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department iv Draft Contents October 2014 Police Protection ................................................................ 4.8-11 4.8.6Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.8-11 4.8.7Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.8-12 4.8.8Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.8-14 4.8.9Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.8-15 4.8.10References ................................................................ 4.8-16 Schools ................................................................ 4.8-17 4.8.11Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.8-17 4.8.12Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.8-18 4.8.13Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.8-22 4.8.14Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.8-24 4.8.15References ................................................................ 4.8-24 Libraries ................................................................ 4.8-25 4.8.16Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.8-25 4.8.17Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.8-26 4.8.18Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.8-26 4.8.19Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.8-28 4.8.20References ................................................................ 4.8-28 4.9Recreation ................................................................ 4.9-1 4.9.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.9-1 4.9.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.9-4 4.9.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.9-8 4.9.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.9-10 4.9.5References ................................................................ 4.9-11 4.10Transportation/Traffic ................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.2Existing Conditions ................................................................ 4.10-8 4.10.3Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.10-31 4.10.4Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.10-39 4.10.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.10-68 4.10.6References ................................................................. 4.10-88 4.11UtilIties/Service Systems ................................................................ 4.11-1 Water ................................................................ 4.11-1 4.11.1Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.11-1 4.11.2Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.11-17 4.11.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.11-21 4.11.4Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.11-24 4.11.5References ................................................................. 4.11-28 Wastewater ................................................................ 4.11-29 4.11.6Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.11-29 4.11.7Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.11-33 4.11.8Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.11-38 4.11.9Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.11-42 4.11.10References ................................................................. 4.11-43 Solid Waste ................................................................ 4.11-43 4.11.11Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.11-43 4.11.12Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.11-44 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 v Contents Draft October 2014 4.11.13Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.11-46 4.11.14Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.11-48 4.11.15References ................................................................ 4.11-49 Energy ................................................................ 4.11-49 4.11.16Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.11-49 4.11.17Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 4.11-50 4.11.18Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.11-53 4.11.19Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 4.11-55 4.11.20References ................................................................ 4.11-56 CHAPTER 5Other CEQA Considerations ...................................... 5.1Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study ................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................ 5-1 5.1.2Biological Resources ................................................................ 5-1 5.1.3Geology/Soils ................................................................ 5-2 5.1.4Hazards/Hazardous Materials ................................................................ 5-4 5.1.5Hydrology/Water Quality ................................................................ 5-6 5.1.6Mineral Resources ................................................................ 5-7 5.1.7Utilities/Service Systems ................................................................ 5-7 5.2Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................ 5-8 5.2.1Economic and Population Growth .............................................................. 5-8 5.3Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ...................................................... 5-10 5.4Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .................................................... 5-11 5.5References ................................................................ 5-12 CHAPTER 6Alternatives to the Proposed Project ........................... 6.1Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives .......................................... 6-1 6.2Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible ................................................................ 6-3 6.2.1Alternative Site ................................................................. 6-3 6.3Alternatives Considered in This Draft EIR ................................................................ 6-3 6.4Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................... 6-4 6.4.1Alternative 1: No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of General Plan and Zoning) ............................................... 6-4 6.4.2Alternative 2: Mixed-Use Village Plan .......................................................... 6-6 6.5Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................ 6-8 6.6References ................................................................ 6-9 CHAPTER 7Report Preparers ............................................... 7.1Table of Report Preparers ................................................................ 7-1 Appendices Appendix ANotice of Preparation and NOP Comment Letters Appendix BAir Quality Data Appendix CGreenhouse Gas Emissions Data Appendix DNoise Data Appendix ETraffic Data South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department vi Draft Contents October 2014 Figures Figure 3-1Project Location and Regional Vicinity ................................................................ 3-3 Figure 3-2Existing Land Uses ................................................................ 3-7 Figure 3-3Proposed Land Use Designations ................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-4Proposed Height Limits ................................................................ 3-11 Figure 4.4-1Sea Level Rise ................................................................ 4.4-7 Figure 4.8-1Fire and Police Facilities ................................................................ 4.8-3 Figure 4.8-2Schools Serving the Study Area ................................................................ 4.8-19 Figure 4.10-1Study Intersections and Freeway Segments ................................................................ 4.10-3 Figure 4.10-2Existing and Proposed Transit System ................................................................ 4.10-11 Figure 4.10-3Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ....................................................... 4.10-15 Figure 4.10-4AExisting Intersection Peak-Hour Volumes, Lane Configurations, an Control Devices ................................................................. 4.10-23 Figure 4.10-4BExisting Intersection Peak-Hour Volumes, Lane Configurations, an Control Devices ................................................................. 4.10-25 Figure 4.10-5AExternal Trip Distribution (West) ................................................................ 4.10-47 Figure 4.10-5BExternal Trip Distribution (East) ................................................................. 4.10-49 Figure 4.10-6AProject Trip Assignment ................................................................ 4.10-51 Figure 4.10-6BProject Trip Assignment ................................................................ 4.10-53 Figure 4.10-7AExisting Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................ 4.10-55 Figure 4.10-7BExisting Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................ 4.10-57 Figure 4.10-8ACumulative No Project Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volumes ............................. 4.10-71 Figure 4.10-8BCumulative No Project Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volumes ............................. 4.10-73 Figure 4.10-9ACumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volume........................... 4.10-75 Figure 4.10-9BCumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volume........................... 4.10-77 Tables Table 2-1Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 2-5 Table 3-1Existing and Proposed Land Uses ................................................................ 3-13 Table 3-2Cumulative ProjectsPlanned East of 101 Development by 2035 ....................................... 3-17 Table 4.2-1Summary of Ambient Air Quality at San Francisco-Arkansas Street ...................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-2Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .............................................................. 4.2-6 Table 4.2-3Project Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures ................................................... 4.2-13 Table 4.2-4Construction Daily Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions .......................................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-5Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ................................................................. 4.2-17 Table 4.2-6Existing and Proposed Land Uses ................................................................. 4.2-19 Table 4.2-7Operational Daily Maximum EmissionsExisting ................................................................. 4.2-19 Table 4.2-8Operational Daily Maximum EmissionsProposed Project ................................................ 4.2-20 Table 4.2-9Mitigated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ................................................................ 4.2-21 Table 4.2-10Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................................ 4.2-23 Table 4.3-1Known Cultural Resources within Study Area ................................................................ 4.3-4 Table 4.4-1Global Warming Potentials for Greenhouse Gases ................................................................ 4.4-4 Table 4.4-2Existing Specific Plan GHG Emissions ................................................................ 4.4-5 Table 4.4-3Construction Emissions, MT COe ................................................................ 4.4-22 2 Table 4.4-4Specific Plan Emissions ................................................................ 4.4-24 Table 4.4-5Reduced Specific Plan Emissions ................................................................ 4.4-25 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 vii Contents Draft October 2014 Table 4.5-1South San Francisco General Plan Policies ................................................................ 4.5-12 Table 4.6-1Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels ................................................................ 4.6-2 Table 4.6-2Existing Roadway Noise Levels ................................................................ 4.6-6 Table 4.6-3Existing Freeway Noise Contours ................................................................ 4.6-6 Table 4.6-4Noise Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................ 4.6-9 Table 4.6-5Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas ................................................................ 4.6-10 Table 4.6-6City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standard ................................................................ 4.6-11 Table 4.6-7Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................ 4.6-18 Table 4.6-8Noise Levels With Project, CNEL ................................................................ 4.6-21 Table 4.7-1Population: City of South San Francisco, 19802010 ................................................................. 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2Housing Units: City of South San Francisco, 20002010 .......................................................... 4.7-3 Table 4.7-3Total Housing Units, Households, and Population: City of South S 20002010 ................................................................ 4.7-4 Table 4.7-4RHNA Needs by Income Category: City of South San Francisco, 20072014 .................. 4.7-4 Table 4.7-5Current and Future Employment: City of South San Francisco and t Region, 20052025 ................................................................ 4.7-5 Table 4.7-6ABAG Population and Household Forecast ................................................................ 4.7-7 Table 4.8-1Fire Station Facilities ................................................................ 4.8-2 Table 4.8-2Schools Serving the Study Area ................................................................ 4.8-18 Table 4.8-3South San Francisco Library System ................................................................ 4.8-25 Table 4.9-1Existing Park Acreage ................................................................ 4.9-2 Table 4.10-1Land Use Assumptions for the Specific Plan ................................................................ 4.10-6 Table 4.10-2Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ................................................................ 4.10-7 Table 4.10-3Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ................................................................ 4.10-8 Table 4.10-4Freeway Segment LOS Criteria ................................................................ 4.10-9 Table 4.10-5Existing Intersection LOS Results ................................................................ 4.10-22 Table 4.10-6Existing Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Int............... 4.10-27 Table 4.10-7Existing Freeway Segment LOS Results ................................................................ 4.10-30 Table 4.10-8Existing Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results ........................................................... 4.10-31 Table 4.10-9Specific Plan Trip Generation ................................................................ 4.10-43 Table 4.10-10Project Trips ................................................................ 4.10-44 Table 4.10-11Trip Generation In/Out Splits External Vehicle Trips ......................................................... 4.10-45 Table 4.10-12Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results ................................................................ 4.10-46 Table 4.10-13Existing Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway In Intersections ................................................................ 4.10-59 Table 4.10-14Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results ............................................................ 4.10-66 Table 4.10-15Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results ................................... 4.10-68 Table 4.10-16Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS Results ................................................................ 4.10-70 Table 4.10-17Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Intersections ................................................................ 4.10-79 Table 4.10-18Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results...................................................... 4.10-87 Table 4.10-19Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results ................................................................ 4.10-88 Table 4.11-1SSFD Water Supplies (afy) ................................................................ 4.11-13 Table 4.11-2Cal Water Supply vs. DemandNormal Hydrologic Year (acre-feet)............................. 4.11-14 Table 4.11-3SSFD Average DemandNormal, Single-Dry, and Multiple-Dry Years (acre-feet)... 4.11-14 Table 4.11-4Cal Water Peninsula Districts: Supply vs. DemandSingle-Dry Year (acre-feet) ........ 4.11-15 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department viii Draft Contents October 2014 Table 4.11-5Cal Water Peninsula Districts Supply vs. DemandMultiple-Dry-Year Period (acre-feet) ................................................................ 4.11-16 Table 4.11-6Existing and Potential Water Demand in Specific Plan Study Area ................................... 4.11-22 Table 4.11-720102035 Supply and Demand Comparison for Normal and Critical-Dry an Multiple-Dry Years under with 20 Percent Systemwide Reductions t MembersNo Net Demand Increase Scenario with No Conservation ......................... 4.11-26 Table 4.11-8WQCP 20032008 Violations ................................................................ 4.11-31 Table 4.11-9Wastewater Generated from Specific Plan Build-Out ............................................................ 4.11-39 Table 4.11-10Solid Waste Generated from Specific Plan Build-Out ........................................................... 4.11-47 Table 4.11-11Electricity Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Ou.............................. 4.11-54 Table 4.11-12Natural Gas Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Ou.......................... 4.11-55 Table 6-1Comparison of Specific Plan and Alternative 1 Land Uses .......................................................... 6-4 Table 6-2Comparison of Specific Plan and Alternative 2 Land Uses .......................................................... 6-7 Table 6-3Summary of Impacts of Alternatives ................................................................ 6-9 Table 7-1Report Preparers ................................................................ 7-1 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 ix Acronyms/Abbreviations Draft October 2014 Acronyms/Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit µg/m micrograms per cubic meter 3 AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACP asbestos cement afy acre-feet per year AIM Advance Infrastructure Mitigation ALS Advanced Life Support ALUP Airport Land Use Plan ARB [California] Air Resources Board BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT Best Available Control Technology BART Bay Area Rapid Transit Basin San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Plan BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BFI Browning-Ferris Industries BMP best management practice BOD biological oxygen demand Btu British thermal unit C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County CAA Clean Air Act CAFE corporate average fuel economy Cal EMA California Emergency Management Agency Cal OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen CCR Title 24, Part 11 ( California PUC California Public Utilities Commission CalRecycle [California] Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department x Draft Acronyms/Abbreviations October 2014 Abbreviation Definition CAP climate action plan CAS California Adaptation Strategy CBC California Building Code CBSC California Building Standards Code CCA Community Choice Aggregation CCAA California Clean Air Act CCCC California Climate Change Center CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDOF California Department of Finance CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CF carbontetrafluoride 4 CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfy cubic feet per year CHmethane 4 CHCR California Register of Historic Resources CHL California Historical Landmarks CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board cm centimeters CMP Congestion Management Plan CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide COcarbon dioxide 2 COe carbon dioxide equivalents 2 COG Council of Governments CPHI California Points of Interest CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CWA Clean Water Act CWC California Water Code CWSC California Water Service Company dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibels DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 xi Acronyms/Abbreviations Draft October 2014 Abbreviation Definition DHS Department of Health Services DIP ductile iron DPH [California] Department of Public Health DPM diesel particulate matter DTSC [California] Department of Toxic Substance Control du dwelling units EDD Employment Development Department EIR environmental impact report ESP energy service provider FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR floor-area ratio FEIR final environmental impact report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHWA Federal Highway Administration Findings Findings of Fact FR Federal Register FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FY fiscal year GFA gross floor area GHG greenhouse gas gpcd gallons per capita per day gpd gallons per day GWP global warming potential HCD [California Department of] Housing and Community Development HCM Highway Capacity Manual HDPE high-density polyethylene HFC hydrofluorocarbon HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program HRA health risk assessment HRI [California State] Historic Resources Inventory HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning I/I infiltration and inflow ICS Incident Command System ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department xii Draft Acronyms/Abbreviations October 2014 Abbreviation Definition IOUs investor-owned utilities IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District kV kilovolt kWh/yr kilowatt-hours per year L equivalent energy level eq LOS levels of service LUST leaking underground storage tank mgd million gallons per day MM mitigation measures MMP mitigation monitoring program MMT million metric tons mpg miles per gallon mph miles per hour MPO metropolitan planning organization MRF/TS Blue Line Material Recovery Facility/Transfer Site MSL mean sea level MT metric ton MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NO nitrous oxide 2 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NIC Northwest Information Center NO nitrogen dioxide 2 NOI notice of intent NOP notice of preparation NO nitrogen oxides X NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSLU noise-sensitive land uses NWIC Northwest Information Center O ozone 3 OASIS Operational Area Satellite Information System OES Office of Emergency Services OPR California Office of Planning and Research City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 xiii Acronyms/Abbreviations Draft October 2014 Abbreviation Definition PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon Pb lead PCB polychlorinated biphenyl pcpmpl passenger car equivalents per mile of roadway per lane PDA priority development areas PeMS Performance Measurement System PFC perfluorinated carbon PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PM respirable particulate matter 10 PM fine particulate matter 2.5 ppb parts per billion pph persons per household ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity PRC [California] Public Resources Code proposed project South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan PROS Park, Recreation, and Open Space PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PTE potential to emit PVC polyvinyl chloride R&D Research and Development RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RLMP Responsible Laboratory Management Practice ROG reactive organic gases ROW right-of-way RPC reinforced concrete RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board RWS Regional Water System SALUP Station Area and Land Use Planning SB Senate Bill Scavengers South San Francisco Scavenger Company SCS sustainable communities strategies SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department xiv Draft Acronyms/Abbreviations October 2014 Abbreviation Definition SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System sf square feet SF sulfurhexafluoride 6 SFB RWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SFBCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SFO San Francisco International Airport SFWD San Francisco Water Department SHL State Housing Law SIP State Implementation Plan SMCS SO sulfur dioxide 2 SOsulfur oxide X Specific Plan South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad SSFD South San Francisco District SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department SSFMC South San Francisco Municipal Code SSFPD South San Francisco Police Department SSFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District SSFWQCP South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plan SSMP sewer system management plan STOPPP San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program SWIS Solid Waste Information System SWMP stormwater management plan SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant TBACT Best Available Control Technology for Toxics TMDL total maximum daily load TOD transit-oriented development TSS total suspended solid UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology US-101 United States Highway 101 USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 xv Acronyms/Abbreviations Draft October 2014 Abbreviation Definition USGS United States Geological Survey UWMP urban water management plan v/c volume-to-capacity VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District VCP vitrified clay VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound VTA Valley Transportation Authority WDR waste discharge requirement WQCP Water Quality Control Plant WSA Water Supply Agreement WSIP Water System Improvement Program South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department xvi Draft CHAPTER 1 Introduction October 2014 SECTION 1.1 Purpose and Legal Authority CHAPTER 1 Introduction This environmental impact report (EIR) examines the potential ef Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan or San Francisco is the lead agency for this project. The background fo basis for preparing an EIR are described below. 1.1PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY The Specific Plan would guide the City in its planning efforts t diverse Dstudy area includes approximately thirty-five blocks within 0.5 mile o Plan crafts a vision for the Downtown core, and identifies an imple community goals, including design standards and regulations for future develo will support transit-oriented development (TOD); create an open linkages, lanes, and a pedestrian priority zone; create a new bicycle strategies. The Specific Plan will require review and recommendation by the the Specific Plan is in the discretion of the City Council of So Plan is considered a project under the California Environmental Qua subject to CEQA requirements. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines this EIR is to serve as an informational document that: -makers and the public generally of the significant environmenta effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the sig alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts tha impacts, effects not found to be significant, and significant cu reasonably anticipated future projects. This EIR is a Program EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S EIR that is prepared on a series of actions that can be characte CEQA Guidelines, the use of a Program EIR can provide the follow 1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effe be practical in an EIR on an individual action. 2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slight 3. Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy consideration 4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibilit cumulative impacts. 5. Allow reduction in paperwork. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 1-1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Draft October 2014 SECTION 1.2 Scope of the EIR This EIR will review existing conditions in the City of South Sa environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan, project that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identify reduce potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. development projects within the City, subsequent activities in t must be examined in light of the Program EIR to determine whethe review is necessary. If it is determined that an individual proj environment, an additional environmental document would be requi The purpose of this report is to serve as an informational docum Francisco decision-makers. The process will culminate with Plann hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR (FEIR) and a d Specific Plan. 1.2SCOPE OF THE EIR This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of implem within Downtown South San Francisco. As the proposed Specific Pl outlines the future potential for growth and development within includes an examination of all environmental issues that are con Appendix G. In addition, the environmental issues analyzed in this docume determined to be potentially significant by the notice of prepar City staff. The NOP and comment letters received during the NOP Appendix A of this EIR. The NOP identified that the EIR would address pot following issue areas associated with implementation of the prop Aesthetics Air Quality Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use/Planning Noise Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems: >Water Supply >Sewer >Solid Waste >Electricity >Natural Gas In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 (Effects Not Fo5 (Other CEQA Considerations) of this EIR explains why some environmental agriculture/forestry resources, biological resources, geology/so hydrology/water quality, and mineral resources were not consider analyzed further in this EIR. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 1-2 Draft CHAPTER 1 Introduction October 2014 SECTION 1.3 Intended Use of the EIR In preparing the EIR, pertinent policies of the Specific Plan we impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. R and provide services to the City were also contacted for informa consulted are provided at the end of each chapter. Chapter 6 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the EIR was Guidelines Section 15126.6, which requires an evaluation of a reasonable alternatives assessed. 1.2.1Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, an EIR must include a description of the existing against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, th condition that exists when the NOP is published. The NOP for the October 1, 2013. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that the date for baseline cannot be rigid. Because physical environmental conditions periods, the use of environmental baselines that differ from the appropriate when doing so results in a more accurate or conserva For analytical purposes, impacts associated with implementation the environmental setting in 2013. This EIR presents and analyzes the proposed allowable gro scenario as a result of the Specific Plan from 2014 through a pl matter, actual development under any area plan is typically subs theoretical limit of development because of building and zoning 1 factors and market forces. The Market Demand Analysis determined that a reasonably foreseeable build- out of the Specific Plan over the 20-year planning period would area. Therefore, this EIR assumes that 25 percent of the parcels wit in this 20-year timeframe. 1.3INTENDED USE OF THE EIR This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant en future development resulting from implementation of the proposed appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or project alternat these impacts. Additionally, this EIR will provide the primary s the City of South San Francisco, the lead agency, to use when co This EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the pro significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as reduced to less-than-significant levels, whether through the imp BAE Urban Economics, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Market Demand Ana (August 24, 2012). 1 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 1-3 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Draft October 2014 SECTION 1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies the implementation of specific alternatives to the project. In a a technique for fact-finding, allowing concerned citizens and ag review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts thro 1.4LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES The City of South San Francisco is the lead agency for the proje responsibility for approving the project. A responsible agency r lead agency, that has discretionary approval over the project. The document for the City of South San Francisco to utilize moving f not address a specific or proposed development, and no responsib Subsequent development projects will be subject to discretionary the development proposal, other public agencies. In addition to projects within the City may require approval from: State Water Resources Control Board (General Construction Activi Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) A trustee agency is a state agency having jurisdiction by law ov which are held in trust for the people of the state. As discusse document for the Downtown area of the City of South San Francisc proposed development. As such, no trustee agencies are identifie future development within the City, trustee agencies may include resources, USACE regarding waters of the US and wetlands, and th District (BAAQMD) regarding issues of air quality and associated permitti 1.5ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This EIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and pr (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000 et seq.), Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regu implementation of CEQA as adopted by the City of South San Francisco. The Francisco is the lead agency for this project, taking responsibi review and approving or denying the project. The Specific Plan will guide the City in its planning efforts toit-supportive, diverse D has determined that an EIR for the Specific Plan would best serv South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 1-4 Draft CHAPTER 1 Introduction October 2014 SECTION 1.5 Environmental Review Process examination of all environmental issues that are contained in 20 the exception of agriculture/forestry resources, biological resources, materials, hydrology/water quality, and mineral resources. The E Plan to determine whether any aspect of the project, either indi significant effect on the environment. The City prepared an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (IS included in Appendix A and are filed with the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as an indication that an EIR would be prepared. In turn, t public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period beginning October 1, 2013, and ending October 30, 2013. The purpose of the public review period and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the letters on the IS/NOP, which are also included in Appendix A of persons who did not respond during the public review period of the I comment during the public review period for this EIR, as well as Plan. In addition to the filing of the IS/NOP, the City held a P 2013, to encourage and solicit comments from the public on the p This EIR will be distributed to affected agencies, surrounding c interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with During the 45- website for the Specific Plan (http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/) and at the following locations: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco Main Library 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco Grand Avenue Library 306 Walnut Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Interested parties may provide comments on the EIR in written fo the City of South San Francisco to the following address: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Ms. Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 1-5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Draft October 2014 SECTION 1.5 Environmental Review Process Your comments may also be sent by FAX to 650.829.6639 or by emaidowntownplan@ssf.net (include SSF Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR in the subj Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written resp respect to environmental issues discussed in the EIR will be pre Furthermore, written responses to comments received from any pub these agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing duri be considered. These comments, and their responses, will be incl the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Cou According to PRC Section 21081, the lead agency must make specif approving the FEIR, when the EIR identifies significant environmental impa project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link be action of the lead agency with regard to approval or rejection o project, one of three findings must be made: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated in substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as ide Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and ju and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been ad can and should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consid employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeas project alternatives identified in the FEIR. Additionally, according to PRC Section 21081.6, for projects in which sig by mitigation measures, the lead agency must include a mitigation m the FEIR. The purpose of the MMP is to ensure compliance with re implementation of the project. However, environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a occurs, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If a significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state in w the project, based on the FEIR and any other information in the a proposed project make its unavoidable environmental effects ac required, after the FEIR has been completed, yet before action t Ultimately, the lead agency must certify the FEIR prior to appro South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 1-6 Draft CHAPTER 1 Introduction October 2014 SECTION 1.6 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved 1.6AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED During the environmental review process, NOP comment letters wer raised issues of concern. These comment letters, and verbal comm meeting (Appendix A) were used to determine areas of potential c These issues are summarized below: Traffic impacts to local, county, and state facilities Impacts to trails and recreational facilities Traffic impacts related to jobs/housing ratio Cultural resource issues, including tribal consultation per SB 18 and potential for buried cultural resources Impacts to population and housing, including displacement of exist local businesses Impacts to air quality Conflicts with an active railroad right-of-way (ROW) 1.7DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This EIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help t particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each sec contained at the end of each respective chapter. The following c Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter describes the purpose, approach, intended use, and scope of the EIR, a summary of the environmental and public revi to the proposed project, the availability of the EIR, and a brie organization. Chapter 2: Summary This chapter contains a summary of the proposed project, as well summary of environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of and unavoidable impacts. Chapter 3: Project Description This chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including a description of the project location, enviro project background, project objectives, and project characterist Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis This chapter describes and evaluates the environmental issue areas, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental long-term), policy considerations related to the particular envi mitigation measures capable of minimizing environmental harm, an impacts. Recommendations are made, as appropriate, where additio ensure consistency with environmental policies. Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations This chapter provides analysis, as required by CEQA, regarding impacts that would result from the proposed proj not to be significant, growth-inducing impacts, significant irre and significant and unavoidable impacts. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 1-7 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Draft October 2014 SECTION 1.8 References Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Proposed Project This chapter analyzes feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project/Existing General Plan and a Mixed-Use Village alternative. Chapter 7: Report Preparers This chapter identifies all of the individuals responsible for t preparation of this EIR. 1.8REFERENCES BAE Urban Economics. 2012. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Market Demand Ana, August 24. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 1-8 Draft CHAPTER 2 Summary October 2014 SECTION 2.1 Purpose of the Summary CHAPTER 2 Summary 2.1PURPOSE OF THE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed proj mitigation measures, and residual impacts of the proposed projec 2.2INTRODUCTION This EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public w intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the pro significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as reduced to less-than-significant levels, through the imposition the implementation of alternatives to the project. 2.3SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific project) will guide the City in its planning efforts to create a ltrain commuter rail station. The study area includes approximately thirty-five blocks within 0.5 mile of the a Specific Plan will support transit-oriented development (TOD); c pedestrian linkages, lanes, and a pedestrian-priority zone; crea parking strategies. The types of land uses accommodated in the study area under the existing conditions. However, these uses would be intensified, pmile of the future Caltrain station. Within this zone, a Downtown Transit Core Desig 120 dwelling units per acre under special conditions. Grand Avenue core of the City and building heights would be limited to about to protect the pedestrian and historic scale of Grand Avenue. Heights would be allowed up to 85 feet to allow for higher intensity development. Proposed allowab heights in the entire study area are provided in Figure 3-4 (Pro The remainder of the Downtown area, which includes the Grand Avenue Residential Core, from Tamarack Lane south to Second Lane, would currently allowed, up to 65 feet in height and up to 80 dwelling acre allowed if specific criteria are met, and for the inclusion of a to 125 dwelling units would be allowed. Along Airport Boulevard medium-density mixed-use designation will encourage higher densi per acre if specific criteria are met) as well as business commercia City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 2-1 CHAPTER 2 Summary Draft October 2014 SECTION 2.4 Classification of Environmental Impacts land use changes are proposed for the Business Commercial design framed by US-101, the rail tracks, and Airport Boulevard and the area along Airp Armour Avenue. The East of US-101 area would continue to be designated a high intensity employmen center, and similar to existing conditions, no residential use w allowable density would increase from 2.0 FAR to approximately 3 Assuming that 25 percent of the parcels in the study area would plan, the Specific Plan would accommodate a net increase of approximat 0.8 million square feet (sf) of commercial uses, 21,000 sf of indust office/research and development uses. 2.4CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS l adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects, this for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change as characterizes the effects as impacts in the following categories Less Than Significant Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environment conditions Potentially Significant Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environment conditions that can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels potentially feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of alternative Significant and Unavoidable Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by imple mitigation measures 2.5SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The following significant and unavoidable impacts would result f proposed project. A detailed discussion of these impacts can be Section 4.3 (Cultural Resources), Section 4.6 (Noise), and Section 4.10 document. Air Quality >Implementation of the proposed project would violate an air qual substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Cultural Resources >Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guideli Noise >Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substan ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existi South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 2-2 Draft CHAPTER 2 Summary October 2014 SECTION 2.6 Alternatives Traffic/Transportation >Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with an appli policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performanc >Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greateto the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on two nor one southbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions f segment and two southbound segments, resulting in a significant pro Existing Plus Project Conditions. >Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with an applicable p policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performanc under cumulative plus project conditions. >Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with an appli policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performanc under Cumulative Plus Project conditions for two intersections. >Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greate freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on one northbo US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent of the freeway seg segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions o segments and five southbound segments of US-101 under cumulative conditions. >Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greate freeway ramp volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F for one southbounUS-101 ramp during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. 2.6ALTERNATIVES As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) and recent cou Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to t would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the projec any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) states: The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the pr capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant e alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the p costly. Alternatives evaluated in this EIR include the following: Alternative 1: No Project/Continuation of Existing General Plan Alternative This legally mandated alternative, which is not subject to the requirements t objectives of the proposed plan or to substantially lessen any o project, reflects conditions likely to occur in the future witho plan. Future land uses in the study area would be guided by cont General Plan land use designations and zoning, as applicable. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 2-3 CHAPTER 2 Summary Draft October 2014 SECTION 2.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Alternative 2: Mixed Use Village This alternative balances locational opportunities for new housing with additional sites for employment uses in the study a predominating in the Downtown, and a mix of residential and empl Neighborhood. 2.7SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1), Table 2-1 (Summ Mitigation Measures) contains a summary of less-than-significant, and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the propos would reduce or avoid those effects, and the level of significan implementation of mitigation measures. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 2-4 Draft CHAPTER 3 Project Description October 2014 SECTION 3.1 Existing Project Site Characteristics CHAPTER 3 Project Description The proposed South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific project) will guide the City in its planning efforts to create a train commuter rail station. The study area includes approximately thirty-five blocks within 0.5 mile of the Plan crafts a vision for the Downtown core, and identifies an imple community goals, including design standards and regulations for fu will support transit-oriented development (TOD); create an open linkages, lanes, and a pedestrian-priority zone; create a new bi strategies. 3.1EXISTING PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3.1.1Project Location South San Francisco lies at the northern end of San Mateo County Brisbane, Colma, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno. South San F Francisco and abuts the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) at The area covered by the Specific Plan (study area) is defined by Caltrain station, which is located slightly north of the Airport and below the U.S. Highway 101 (US-101)-elevated segment and the Grand Avenue overpass. The 0.5- mile radius was altered somewhat to exclude lower-density/hillsi where no change is proposed or appropriate, and to exclude areasUS-101 where newer commercial uses suggest no change is likely during the time peri study area boundary includes the South San Francisco Caltrain st of US-101, encompassing much of the East of 101 neighborhood, but exclude existing office development east of US-101 and the Gateway neighborhood. The study area is generally bound by Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue to the north; Gate to the east; Railroad Avenue and Canal Street to the south; and west (refer to Figure 3-1 [Project Location and Regional Vicinit 3.1.2Surrounding Land Uses The study area west of US-101 includes many vacant parcels or surface parking lots. A number serving or autooriented uses occur along the freeway corridor and south of Gran City-serving retail uses are found scattered throughout the area commercial corridor in the study area. Residential uses exist to Grand Avenue, with commercial and light industrial uses located Railroad Avenue. The East of 101 subarea of the City, of which a City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 3-1 CHAPTER 3 Project Description Draft October 2014 SECTION 3.2 Project Objectives area, is the largest employment district in northern San Mateo C Business and Technology Park, Business Commercial, and Mixed Ind The Colma Creek Canal is located south of the study area. The ca east to west, and connects to the San Francisco Bay. The canal i area, but supports wetland and riparian vegetation along some ar 3.2PROJECT OBJECTIVES CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 requires that an EIR include a sta proposed project. This disclosure assists in developing the range of p in the EIR, as well as providing a rationale for the adoption of if one is in fact adopted. Identified below are goals and object forth by the City of South San Francisco: Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco to be a vibrant and succ and a source of local pride Promote new residential, mixed- business patrons and residents to the Downtown, while maintainin complementary Focus new improvements on Grand Avenue to return the historic co community and encourage retention of existing and local business fabric Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well a employment area east of US-101 Community goals and priorities identified during the community o identified the following goals: Protect and celebrate the historic nature of Downtown Improve access to the Caltrain station Support local businesseskeep Downtown unique Improve east/west connectivity and access to Downtown Remove truck traffic from Downtown Reduce traffic congestion on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard Increase the use of alternative travel modes Specific Plan. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 3-2 LEGEND PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY PLAN AREA BOUNDARY DOWNTOWN BOUNDARY RAILROAD TRACKS INACTIVE RAIL SPUR 1/2 MILE RADIUS FROM STATION PROJECT EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION LOCATION PROPOSED CALTRAIN STATION COLMA CREEK CANAL SCHOOLS PARK & RECREATION OPEN SPACE PARADISE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD Paradise Martin Valley School Park South San Francisco Business Center GATEWAYGATEWAY NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD 101 Lowes Home Improvement Linden Cypress SIGN HILL Green & Pine NEIGHBORHOOD Spot Park Spruce DOWNTOWN School NEIGHBORHOOD Church City Hall Totlot City Hall DOWNTOWN EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD LINDENVILLE tment of NEIGHBORHOOD Works Sister Cities Park 101 02505001000 SCALE IN FEET Source: Figure 3-1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity Draft CHAPTER 3 Project Description October 2014 SECTION 3.3 Specific Plan Context and Background 3.3SPECIFIC PLAN CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND The City was the recipient of a Metropolitan Transportation Comm Governments Station Area and Land Use Planning (SALUP) grant to Specific Plan. The process of preparing the Station Area Specifi timeframe, starting in February 2012, with a draft made public i plan is anticipated for late 2014/early 2015. The draft Specific Plan considered two land use alternatives, lab Alternative A represented a mixed-use village concept, which would offe Development (R&D), residential and retail uses in the east neigh the zoning of the Downtown Core per existing General Plan design little change. Alternative B was chosen as the preferred alterna project in this EIR. Alternative A is analyzed in Chapter 6 (Alt Alternative 2. As a practical matter, actual development under any area plan is theoretical limit of development because of building and zoning 3 factors and market forces. The Market Demand Analysis determined that a reasonably foreseeable build- out of the Specific Plan over the 20-year planning period would area. Therefore, this EIR assumes that 25 percent of the parcels wit in this 20-year timeframe. 3.4PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Compared to development under the General Plan, the Specific Pla new residential and employment uses within the study area. Howev Zoning amendments would be adopted concurrent with the adoption The following General Plan and Zoning amendments would be requir Plan: General Plan Amendments Modify the General Plan Land Use Diagram to reflect the land use Use Plan) of the Specific Plan. Modify Tables 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 (Standards for Density and Development Intensity) a classification text to reflect changes in intensity and density. Modify Figure 2-3 (Special Area Height Limitations) to reflect heights shown o the Specific Plan. Modify Table 2.4-1 (Land Use Changes and Intensification; Combined Approved and Development Under the General Plan) to reflect additional develo Modify Table 2.4-2 (Buildout Population) to reflect additional build-out populat BAE Urban Economics, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Market Demand Ana (August 24, 2012). 3 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 3-5 CHAPTER 3 Project Description Draft October 2014 SECTION 3.4 Project Characteristics Modify Table 2.4-3 (Existing and Buildout Employment by Land Use, 1997-Buildout) additional build-out employment. Modify Table 2.4-4 (Jobs/Housing Balance) to reflect updated projected Jobs/Empl Residents ratio. Modify Figure 2-7 (Specific Area Plans and Redevelopment Areas) Station Area Specific Plan boundaries. Modify text within Section 2.5 (Area and Specific Plans) to incl Specific Plan. Modify text within Section 3.1 (Downtown Planning Subarea) to in policies by reference. Also modify Table 3.1-1 (Downtown Development, Population and Employment under the General Plan) to include build-out of Specific Pl Modify Chapter 4 (Transportation) to include recommended street and bik the Specific Plan. Zoning Amendments Zoning District: add the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Dis and Area Plan Districts). District Purpose: add a reference to the Specific Plan in Distri regarding the future of the Downtown Station Area. Map: include a map of the Specific Plan area that illustrates th Land Use Regulations: Show permitted and conditionally permitted standards within the land use districts. Development and Design Regulations and Standards: include standa setbacks, and other considerations, including the standards iden Existing land uses in the study area are provided in Figure 3-2 3 (Proposed Land Use Designations) shows the land use designations propos comparison of existing and proposed land uses is also provided i Land Uses). As shown in Table 3-1, the types of land uses accommod Specific Plan would be similar to existing conditions. However, these particularly within 0.25 mile of the Caltrain station. Within th Designation is proposed, allowing up to 100 dwelling units per a (FAR) of 6.0. Grand Avenue would continue to be the historic core o would be limited to about 45 feet directly fronting Grand Avenue scale of Grand Avenue. Heights off Grand Avenue in this zone would for higher intensity development. Proposed allowable building heigh provided in Figure 3-4 (Proposed Height Limits). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 3-6 PARADISE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD Paradise Martin Valley Park School South San Francisco Business Center 101 GATEWAY GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD Lowes Home Improvement Linden Cypress SIGN HILL Green & Pine Spot Park NEIGHBORHOOD Spruce School c Church Totlot City Hall c DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD LINDENVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD 101 LEGEND PLAN AREA BOUNDARYLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALPARKING AUTO-SERVING COMMERCIAL RAILROAD TRACKSVACANT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AUTO-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPURDOWNTOWN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALPARK & RECREATION MIXED INDUSTRIAL 1/2 MILE RADIUS FROM STATIONDOWNTOWN MEDIUM DENSITY RES.OPEN SPACE TRANSPORTATION CENTER c EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION DOWNTOWN HIGH DENSITY RES. SCHOOL c PROPOSED CALTRAIN STATIONDOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL PUBLIC COLMA CREEK CANALBUSINESS COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL 05001000 0500100005001000 SCALE IN FEET Source: Figure 3-2 Existing Land Uses PARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Martin Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley ParkParkParkParkPark Park School Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/ Linden/ Linden/Linden/ Linden/Linden/Linden/ Linden/Linden/ Linden/ Linden/ Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/ Linden/HillsideLinden/Linden/Linden/HillsideLinden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/Linden/ HillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillsideHillside MEDIUM-DENSITY HillsideHillside HillsideHillsideHillsideHillside Hillside HillsideHillsideHillside Hillside Hillside Hillside HillsideHillside Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green MIXED-USE Green Green SpotSpotSpotSpot SpotSpot Spot South San South San Spot Spot Spot Francisco Business Center 101101 GATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD Lowes Home LindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLinden Improvement LindenLinden LindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLinden LindenLindenLindenLindenLinden LindenLindenCypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress LindenLindenLinden SIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILL Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress LindenCypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Cypress Cypress Green Green Green Green Green Green Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Green Green Green Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine Spot SpotSpotSpot SpotSpot Spot NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD ParkParkParkPark ParkPark NEIGHBORHOOD Park ParkPark ParkPark ParkParkPark Park NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD DOWNTOWN HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Spruce School c TRANSITION MEDIUM-DENSITY DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL TRANSIT HD RES PLUS CORE HD RES ChurchChurchChurchChurchChurchChurchChurchChurch TotlotTotlotTotlot ChurchChurch Church Church Church Church City Hall GRAND AVENUE CORE GRAND AVENUE CORE DOWNTOWNDOWNTOWN EASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERNEASTERN EASTERN EASTERN EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE DOWNTOWN R&D HD RES PLUS BUSINESS LINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD 101 101 101 LEGEND STUDY AREA BOUNDARY RAILROAD TRACKS LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR c EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION PROPOSED CALTRAIN STATION PEDESTRIAN ALLEY 0500100005001000 05001000 SCALE IN FEET Source: Figure 3-3 Proposed Land Use Designations PARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEYPARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEY PARADISE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Paradise Martin Paradise Paradise Paradise Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley Valley ParkParkParkParkPark School South San South San Francisco Business Center 50Â’ 101101 GATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAYGATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD 60Â’ Lowes Home 50Â’ LindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLinden Improvement LindenLindenLinden LindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLindenLindenCypress Cypress Cypress Cypress LindenLindenLindenLindenCypress Cypress Cypress Cypress LindenLindenCypress Cypress Cypress LindenLindenCypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress SIGN HILL Cypress SIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILLSIGN HILL Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Linden Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Green Cypress Green Green Green Green Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Green Green Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress Cypress & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine & Pine Green Green & Pine & Pine & Pine Spot SpotSpotSpotSpot & Pine & Pine & Pine SpotSpot ParkParkParkParkPark NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD Park ParkPark ParkPark NEIGHBORHOOD Park 60Â’ 35Â’ Spruce School 65Â’ cc 50Â’ 30Â’ 35Â’ 120Â’ ChurchChurchChurchChurchChurch TotlotTotlot ChurchChurch Church Church 75Â’ 65Â’ Church City Hall 45Â’ 45Â’ DOWNTOWNDOWNTOWNDOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD 65Â’ 75Â’ 120Â’ 85Â’ EAST SIDEEAST SIDEEAST SIDEEAST SIDEEAST SIDEEAST SIDEEAST SIDEEAST SIDE EAST SIDE 50Â’ NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD 85Â’ 50Â’ LINDENVILLE LINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLELINDENVILLE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD 50Â’ 101 101 LEGEND PLAN AREA BOUNDARY RAILROAD TRACKS LESS ACTIVE RAIL SPUR RADIUS FROM STATION c EXISTING CALTRAIN STATION c PROPOSED CALTRAIN STATION 50Â’ 50Â’ 05001000 05001000 SCALE IN FEET Source: Figure 3-4 Proposed Height Limits Draft CHAPTER 3 Project Description October 2014 SECTION 3.4 Project Characteristics Table 3-1 Existing and Proposed Land Uses Additional Development Under Specific Land Use Designation Existing Conditions Plan Residential 1,400 dwelling units 1,435 dwelling units Downtown Commercial 602,643 sf Auto-serving Commercial 54,664 sf Business Commercial 129,884 sf 511,780 sf Hotel 285,165 sf Industrial 797,055 sf 21,250 sf Institutional 150,142 sf Commercial 268,800 sf Office Office/R&D 1,185,049 sf SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Downtown Specific Plan, Draft (2014). sf = square feet The remainder of the Downtown area, which includes the Grand Avenue Core and the Downtown Residential Core, from Tamarack Lane south to Second Lane, would currently allowed, up to 65 feet in height and up to 80 dwelling would be permitted in the Downtown Residential Core, provided certain the inclusion of affordable senior housing a density of up to 12 district would have a 3.0 FAR, with incentive-based bonuses for housing projects. Along Airport Boulevard and south of Armour Aved- use designation will encourage higher-density residential (up to business commercial at up to 0.5 FAR. No land use changes are proposed designations currently applied to the zone framed by US-101, the rail tracks, and Airport Boulevard and the area along Airport Boulevard, north of Armour Avenue. The EaUS-101 area would continue to be designated a high intensity employment center, and, similar t would be allowed. However, the maximum allowable density would i approximately 3.5 FAR, if specific criteria are met. Assuming th area would be redeveloped over the lifetime of the plan, the Specifi increase of approximately 1,435 dwelling units, 0.8 million squa of industrial uses, and 1.2 million sf of new office/research and develo Circulation improvements would also be implemented throughout the study modes, to improve access between Downtown and the East Side neig connectivity, reduce impacts from regional traffic, and provide transit e BART and the South San Francisco ferry terminal. In order to ens the Specific Plan fully endorses plans already developed for the the platform south of its current location This plan also includes a below-grade pedestrian/bicycle . underpass that would be constructed to connect Grand Avenue on eUS-101, as shown in Figure 3-3. This pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing from the Caltr City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 3-13 CHAPTER 3 Project Description Draft October 2014 SECTION 3.5 Project Implementation intersection of the Grand Avenue extension and the existing Indu proposed: Railroad Avenue is proposed to be extended east to con roadway is proposed to connect Grand Avenue to the Railroad Aven Boulevard. As shown in Figure 3-3, a pedestrian-priority area is proposed s includes the Downtown Commercial Core from Spruce Avenue to Airport Bou future Caltrain plaza and to the eastern neighborhood. The zone streets: Grand Avenue (both sides of US-101), Miller Avenue, and Baden Avenue, and portions of Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Cypress Avenue, and Airport Bouleva lighting are encouraged within the pedestrian-priority zone, and be prioritized within the zone. Three public plaza areas are proposed within the study area. At areas along Grand Avenue would result in usable flat area that w addition, the block of Grand Avenue facing City Hall would be a temporarily closed to through traffic. Special paving and lighti A plaza at the relocated Caltrain station would include landscap interpretive display. A public space would also be located in th Linden Avenue around Aspen Avenue and Pine Avenue. This would be cafes, restaurants, with wider sidewalks, special paving in the character and slow traffic in the area. 3.5PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The objectives of the proposed project would be implemented thro programs as well as recommendations enacted concurrently with Spe changes) including a number of long-range programs that are anti funding sources become available. The individual Specific Plan g found in Specific Plan Chapters 4 through 7, and implementation Chapter 8. 3.6INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR This EIR is a program EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S intended to act as an analytical superstructure for subsequent, more deta goals in preparing the current document is to focus new informat considerations, and similar big-picture issues as comprehensivel recognizes that this document does not include the level of deta and anticipates that future projects will require more detailed proposed. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 3-14 Draft CHAPTER 3 Project Description October 2014 SECTION 3.7 Proposed Project Alternatives Future site-specific approvals may be evaluated pursuant to the Guidelines Section individual projects that are consistent wi Koster v. County of San Joaquin [1996] 47 Cal. App.4th 29, 36). Before deciding to rely in part on a first-tier EIR in connspecific project, a lead Guidelines Section 15152(f), PRC Section 21094(c)). Where this a an EIR may be required for the later project. In contrast, a negati declaration may be prepared where there is no substantial eviden impacts not adequately addressed in the prior EIR, or where proj or mitigation imposed by the City avoid any such new significant where they are not significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 further provides that, where a fir the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revi Furthermore, subsequent documents may focus the examinat avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by neral: that: (A) they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental imp (B) they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in t report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by sit imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with t project. Here, as noted above, whenever project proponents within the Cit approvals in the study area, the City will prepare initial studi proposal would cause any significant impacts that were not adequ analyses for these site- mitigation measures that either (i) were adopted in connection with the proposed Specific Plan or (ii) were formulated based on information in this EIR. 3.7PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, alternatives Detailed information regarding the project alternatives is provided in Proposed Project) of this EIR. These alternatives include the followin Alternative 1: No Project/Continuation of Existing General Plan Alternative 2: Mixed Use Village Alternative City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 3-15 CHAPTER 3 Project Description Draft October 2014 SECTION 3.8 Public Actions and Approvals Required 3.8PUBLIC ACTIONS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(b), the City of So for the proposed project. As such, this EIR will be used by the Cit impacts created by implementation of the Specific Plan and to de address those impacts for which mitigation measures are proposed Francisco City Council will consider approval of the proposed pr In addition, the City Council would consider approval of a State necessary. 3.8.1State and Local Agencies In addition to the City of South San Francisco (lead agency), th agencies that have discretionary or review authority over the pr development pursuant to the proposed project. The responsible ag acting on such subsequent specific projects. Those federal, stat the information contained in this EIR when considering approval limited to, the following: State Water Resources Control Board (General Construction Activi Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 3.9CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines In general, these impacts occur in conjunction with other relate compound or interrelate with those of the project under review. In order to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project in com other expected future growth, the amount and location of growth proposed project) must be considered. As stated in CEQA Guidelin foreseeable growth may be based on either of the following, or a co A list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future proje impacts, including those projects outside the control of the age South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 3-16 Draft CHAPTER 3 Project Description October 2014 SECTION 3.9 Cumulative Development Scenario A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or which is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions For the purposes of this EIR, the potential cumulative effects o build-out of the South San Francisco General Plan, including cum Plan as shown in Table 3-2 (Cumulative ProjectsPlanned East of 101 Developments by 2035) depending upon the specific impact being analyzed. For some reso where impacts are site-specific, only those cumulative projects are considered. For other resources, such as hydrology, the enti City drains is the cumulative geographic context. The geographic analysis is specified in each section. The list of related proje Table 3-2 (Cumulative ProjectsPlanned East of 101 Development by 2035). Table 3-2 Cumulative ProjectsPlanned East of 101 Development by 2035 20352009 20352015 2009 GFA 2015 GFA 2035 GFA Land Use Type Increase Increase (sf) (sf) (sf) in GFA (sf) in GFA (sf) Office 1,008,801 1,160,801 2,629,395 1,620,594 1,468,594 Lab 1,012,674 1,455,674 2,002,482 989,808 546,808 Genentech Overlay Redevelopment Land Use Manufacturing 1,482,213 1,482,213 1,041,668 (440,545) (440,545) Amenities 69,500 69,500 322,000 252,500 252,500 Hotel 350 350 350 Genentech Triangle Land Use R&D 372,000 372,000 372,000 Office 248,000 248,000 248,000 Commercial 10,000 50,000 50,000 40,000 Hotel 102 350 248 350 Oyster Point Land Use R&D 680,499 1,040,499 1,710,230 1,029,731 669,731 Office 240,000 920,000 920,000 680,000 Commercial 238,002 364,502 673,302 435,300 308,800 Home Center 165,000 290,794 290,794 125,794 Hotel 2,890 3,385 3,385 495 a Rest of East of 101 Land Use R&D 5,497,772 7,824,074 8,638,902 3,141,130 814,828 Office 360,000 1,230,570 1,230,570 870,570 Manufacturing 8,033,490 8,019,777 11,291,567 3,258,077 3,271,790 Quality Restaurant 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total East of 101 Land Use 18,187,951 22,937,834 31,440,910 13,252,959 8,503,076 b SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area (January 28, 2011). GFA = gross floor area (in square feet); sf = square feet; (#) = reduction in GFA Adjusted to exclude Oyster Point Land Use. a. Hotel Rooms b. Excluding Hotel Rooms City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 3-17 CHAPTER 3 Project Description Draft October 2014 SECTION 3.10 References 3.10REFERENCES South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. TJKM Transportation Consultants. 2011. Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area, January 28. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 3-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.0 Introduction to the Analysis CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis 4.0INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS This chapter contains a discussion of the possible environmental specific issue areas that were identified through the Initial StA) as having potentially significant impacts. This chapter is the p provides information the on existing environmental setting, the magnitude of the proposed feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid such imp component of the analysis defines the environmental conditions a, while project impacts are defined as the proposed Mitigation measures are designed to reduce the proposed ct. The purpose of this such impacts would affect the existing environment. antial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions wi including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient nois significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not b environment. A social or economic change related to a physical c The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of th as a discussion of the regulatory framework relevant to that iss the impact analysis, the criteria used to determine whether potential effects are signifi impact of the proposed project against the threshold of signific measures proposed for significant impacts, and describes the lev The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative ef associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other p development in areas causing related impacts. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.0 Introduction to the Analysis [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1AESTHETICS This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff of the proposed project. No comment letters addressing aesthetics w notice of preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project. Data for this section were taken from the South San Francisco Ge Area Plan (1994). Full reference-list entries for all cited mate (References). 4.1.1Environmental Setting Visual Character of Study Area The City of South San Francisco is located within a broad valley County with adjoining hillsides formed by the San Bruno Mountain on the west, both of which slope toward San Francisco Bay. Hills and Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain (which is located outside o landmarks. The topography generally increases from the lowlands zone in the middle of the valley and then increases greatly to t The Downtown area is characterized by gently sloping streets, wh beyond. The City straddles the north/south-running US-101 and In east and west, respectively. Additionally, two fixed rail lines ser (BART), with a station on El Camino Real, and Caltrain, with a s The Station Area Specific Plan study area (study area) includes 0.5-mile radius of the South San Francisco Caltrain station and als (low, medium, and high densities), residential uses (low and med use, business commercial use, auto-serving commercial use, auto- industrial use, public and institutional uses, parks and recreat center currently exist within the study area. The study area pri subareas: Downtown and East of 101. While the two planning subar have major differences in terms of visual character, both subare parcels and vacant land, which represent opportunities for new d Downtown Subarea The Downtown subarea is the historic core of the City where olde architectural interest, dominate. Some of these older buildings were developed during the mid-twentieth century. In the Downtown small in scale, usually one to three stories high and surface pa discrepancies in the development fabric. In the Downtown landsca the 1920s and remains largely in its original configuration, is City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics impressive scale and high setting above Grand Avenue. Additional by a street grid network that was established when the City bega This street grid network has facilitated fine-grained, scaled de and intermediate lanes in some locations, resulting in a walkabl Development in the Downtown subarea has remained focused around heart of the area, with a focus on retail uses. Aesthetic improv trees and large, double acorn lights with historic character. Gr Downtown subarea to have street trees, while all other streets r Aesthetic themes of the Downtown subarea include brick accent pa some consistency throughout the area, as well as brick crosswalk However, the overall aesthetic character of the Downtown is vari East of 101 Subarea The East of 101 subarea is the largest employment district in no developed more recently with an entirely different pattern than subarea is characterized by a range of business commercial, mixe which include smaller industrial and service buildings, often ac service areas. However, there is inconsistency between building is 160 feet, while the average building is much shorter. Older industri research and office parks with wide curving roadways and minimal Additionally, the East of 101 subarea has wide streets, large bu parking lots, which create an environment that is not conducive US-101 separates the Downtown and East of 101 subareas, as it runs City. The Caltrain station is currently located below a roadway ramps. Due to this location, the existing Caltrain station is di network of streets and freeway ramps to get to the station is ch transportation. Additionally, the connectivity between the Caltr especially lacking due to the barrier of US-101, which splits th existing Caltrain station is the biggest impediment to transit u area. Surrounding Land Uses The Station Area Specific Plan is located toward the eastern sid existing urban development. Surrounding uses include the followi North: low density residential (the Paradise Valley Neighborhood) and East: business commercial and business and technology park uses South: mixed industrial and business commercial uses West: Downtown high, medium, and low residential, low-density residen manufacturing and warehouse, and park and recreation uses South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics A prominent feature of South San Francisco is Sign Hill. Sign Hi northwest of the Specific Plan study area. Sign Hill is an open space a 2 out of 60-foot- important visual features of the City include El Camino Real, th line. Existing Viewsheds A viewshed is a geographic area composed of land, water, biotic, seen from one or more viewpoints and that has inherent scenic qu determined by those who view it. Views within and surrounding th urban residential and commercial development with associated sur space hillside areas, including Sign Hill and San Bruno Mountain Light and Glare The study area and surrounding area is urban in nature, the exis exposed to artificial light. A variety of sources of artificial streetlights, automobile headlights, security lights associated and exterior lighting from commercial and office buildings. Thes during the nighttime hours. Glare results from sharply reflected light caused by sunlight or finished surfaces such as window glass or brightly colored surfa the study area, mainly due to the high proportion of days per ye urbanized nature of the area, which provides many reflective sur surfaces can be considered a nuisance and, under very unusual ci Major sources of light and glare within the study area include l headlights from vehicles, security lighting, and indoor lighting sensitive to excess light and glare include homes, hospitals, se excessive light may disrupt sleep. In addition, light and glare Shade and Shadow The existing low- and medium-rise buildings within the study are shadow patterns that are contained within close proximity to eac rise buildings within the study area create more extensive shade in their immediate vicinity and not on open space. 4.1.2Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to aesthetics that appl City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics State The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designate purpose of the Caltrans scenic highway program is to protect and California highways and adjacent corridors, through special cons designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landsca quality of the landscape, and the extent t the view. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of hig designation as scenic highways or have been officially designate Within the City of South San Francisco, sections of I-280 have b the State Scenic Highway program; however, these sections are no which is not visible from I-280. Additionally, US-101 has not be designation in the vicinity of the study area. Local The City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element (1 to visual resources that would apply to the study area. The rele Guiding Policies Policy 2-G-1 Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, residents from changes in non-residential areas. Policy 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunitie prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Policy 2-G-5 residential, commercial, and entertainment activities. Policy 2-G-7 Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development they would support transit, in locations where they would provid access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and such developments can help foster identity and vitality. Implementing Policies Policy 2-I-2 Established height limitations for specific areas as delineated Element (Figure 2-3). For these specific areas, do not regulate by underlying base district use. Policy 2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means high community design standards, not to circumvent development i standards. Policy 2-I-6 Undertake a comprehensive review of parking standards and estab reduced parking for mixed-use developments, for development that specified TDM criteria, and Medium- and High-Density residential Policy 2-I-7 Establish a comprehensive design standards and guidelines strat South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics Policy 2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, an improve the community orientation of new development. Policy 2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of indivi neighborhoods. Policy 2-I-17 Steep hillside areas in excess of a 30 percent grade should be natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing c greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum. Policy 2-I-21 Initiate a study to increase provisions of public art throughou through imposition of either on-site improvements or in-lieu fees. In addition to the City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Francisco General Plan Planning Sub-Area Element: Downtown (1999 redevelopment of the Downtown area. The relevant policies are id Guiding Policies Policy 3.1-G-1 -being, and its presence as the Policy 3.1-G-1 Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixe center with retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and persona government and professional offices, civic uses, and a variety o and densities. Policy 3.1-G-3 Promote infill development, intensification, and reuse of curre sites. Policy 3.1-G-4 Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and incr connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods. Implementing Policies Policy 3.1-I-1 Maintain land uses and development intensities in Downtown in a Table 3.1-2 (Planning Sub-Area: Downtown document). Policy 3.1-I-2 Prohibit manufacturing, warehouses, and marginal uses such as b entertainment, as well as additional single-room occupancy units in Policy 3.1-I-3 Do not permit any commercial and office uses in areas designate Residential. Policy 3.1-I-4 Establish a height overlay zone in the Municipal Code correspon standards depicted in Figure 2-3 (Planning Sub-Area: Downtown doc not maintain separate height requirements tied to underlying land uses. help attain heights appropriate to individual corridors, rather variation that will result from the application of height requir individual land uses). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics Policy 3.1-I-5 traditional development pattern. These should include: Maximum set-backs or build-to lines for development in the areas as Downtown Commercial; Reduced set-back and open space requirements for Downtown Residential areas; Increased minimum lot-size requirements for Downtown Residential Increased minimum lot-size requirements for sites designated as High and Medium Density Residential; and Reduce off-street parking standards. Policy 3.1-I-7 Undertake a Downtown streetscape improvement program, which wou Signage or banners along the east side of Airport Boulevard to a Downtown and the auto row from US-101; Signage for the new multi-modal transportation center at the sou of Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard; Tree planting, especially along Linden Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Avenue, and Miller; Grand; and Commercial Avenues; and Vegetation along Railroad Avenue to provide a buffer between Dow residential uses and industrial areas to the south. Policy 3.1-I-8 Improve pedestrian connections between the new multi-modal tran center and Downtown through techniques such as sidewalk bulbing, improvements, and signage. Policy 3.1-I-9 Establish design and signage standards for development along Gr Avenues. Policy 3.1-I-10 Require all development in Downtown to either meet the establis parking requirements, or contribute an appropriate share to the Parking District to mitigate impacts associated with the develop recent developments in Downtown have neither provided off-street contribute any monies to the Downtown Parking District, because to conform to this policy). Regarding the East of 101 area, of which the most western portio General Plan Land Use Element identifies the following policies: Guiding Policies Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residen Policy 3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of 101 area. Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and resear development uses. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics The City of South San Francisco General Plan Parks, Public Facil urban environment. The relevant policies are identified below: Guiding Policies Policy 5.1-G-1 Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and Policy 5.1-G-3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and ope improve access to existing facilities where feasible. Policy 5.1-G-5 Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure i along existing public utilities and transportation right-of-ways. Implementing Policies Policy 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neigh per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new be located in the employment area. Consistency Analysis The Specific Plan is intended to facilitate and guide the City o efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtow opportunities, crafts a vision for the Downtown core, and identi achieve the station area, encourage long-term development that is transit-su community members. Design standards would be developed to enable development in the public and private realms within the study ar Plan Elements pertaining to the Specific Plan (Land Use, Plannin of 101 and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services) state the imp character while redeveloping the area to be consistent with tran Redevelopment would comply with policies related to improving st heights, parking requirements, the development pattern, and buil proposes new land uses within the study area in conjunction with Land Use Element to reflect the new land use designations. In ad provide a detailed account of all allowed uses within the new la land use designations which would not change. The Specific Plan improve the development design pattern between the Downtown and cohesive community with emphasis on the Caltrain station. The Sp represent prime opportunities for change: Grand Avenue; transit- eastern Downtown employment district; Caltrain station platform extension; and Downtown public realm improvements. Four core are land use plan, including the Downtown residential core, the Down core, and the Transit office/R&D core, which is located immediat Compared to the General Plan, with the proposed land use designa City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics yield significant amounts of new residential and employment uses General Plan elements. 4.1.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method A qualitative assessment of visual impacts was prepared by evalu comparing it to visual conditions expected to occur under the pr that an assessment of visual impacts is not a quantitative analy largely subjective. The Specific Plan study area and surrounding photographs reviewed to determine the short- and long-term visua Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have aesthetics if it would: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limite historic buildings within a state scenic highway Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality o Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adv views in the area Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project create a new source of substantial l adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The land uses accommodated under the Specific Plan would have th and glare, such as security lighting or new glass panels on office s developed with similar land uses. Redevelopment would not result nighttime lighting or daytime glare sources. The South San Franc multiple building and construction regulations and zoning requir localized light and glare impacts. Additionally, the Specific Pl pedestrian light fixtures shall be designed to focus light onto into adjacent upper level building windows or into the night sky substantial light or glare would result from implementation of t required in the EIR. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not ha adverse effect on a scenic vista. This would be a impact. Scenic vistas may generally be described in two ways: panoramic geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and ext (visual access to a particular object, scene, setting, or featury associated with vantage points that provide a sweeping geographi Examples of panoramic views include urban skylines, valleys, mou Focal views are generally defined to include views of natural la important structures, such as historic buildings. Changes to a scenic vista would be considered substantial if the Specific Plan results in obstruction of a publicly accessible sc demolition of existing features or elements that substantially c image of a neighborhood, community, or localized area as viewed Scenic Vistas from within the Study Area is the historic core of the City where older buildings, some of and are generally smaller in scale, usually one to three stories The East of 101 subarea is characterized by a range of business designations, which include smaller industrial and service build parking or service areas. However, there is inconsistency betwee in this area is 160 feet, while the average building is much sho patterns and lack of an urban skyline, the study area does not inclu resources. Scenic Vistas outside the Study Area of 101 Area Plan (1994). However, there are prominent visual landma San Francisco Bay. Small portions of the San Bruno Mountains and Hill and the San Francisco Bay are not visible from within the S designated scenic outlooks within the study area and no designat order to gain a view of San Bruno Mountain or Sign Hill Park. Ad the Specific Plan would have building heights consistent with th development sites. Since the land use designations are approved with the approval of the Specific Plan, blockage of these views City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics Specific Plan wo Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vis , and no mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project substantially damage scenic resource to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a st Impact 4.1-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not substanti scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock out and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. This would impact. The California Department of Transportation designates scenic hi280 run north/south and transect the City from the east to west, respect have been designated as scenic corridors under the State Scenic not in the vicinity of the Specific Plan and the study area is n has not been designated or identified as eligible for designatio While the Specific Plan study area is not located within a state buildings that could be considered scenic resources. The integri however, with adherence to Specific Plan policies and objectives to revitalize the Downtown to be a vibrant and successful commun historic building fabric of the area. Grand Avenue is the histor end of the street and a diverse array of one, two, and three sto architectural periods, dispersed along the street. While Grand A development and improvements, the scale and character of the str Specific Plan. Additionally, new development building heights an historic fabric of the Downtown area while providing an updated, pedestrian and commercial activity within the Specific Plan studs along Grand Avenue would vary from the front to the rear of the of the unique one-, two-, or three-story buildings, where taller behind these historic buildings. With the mixed building heights residents and employees would be supported while still maintaini Grand Avenue, which is unique to this particular street. Proposed policies and guidelines would protect historic building study area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project wo resources. This impact would be , and no mitigation is required. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics Threshold Would the project substantially degrade the existing v site and its surroundings? Impact 4.1-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not su the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroun This would be a impact. While new development under the Specific Plan would result in so the study area, implementation of the Specific Plan would result a degradation, of the visual quality of the area. The Specific P the Downtown and East of 101 areas by utilizing four major objec area issues, opportunities, and goals: 1. Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco to be a vibrant and suc and a source of local pride. 2. Promote new residential, mixed- business patrons and residents to the Downtown, while maintainin complementary. 3. Focus new improvements on Grand Avenue to return this historic the focus of the community. Encourage retention of existing and Downtown and protect historic building focus. 4. Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well employment area. The Specific Plan focuses on properties within 0.25 and 0.5 mile area extending 0.5 mile to the west of the Caltrain station and 0.25 US-101, four sub-areas comprise the Downtown area: Downtown transit cor Downtown residential core, and the Linden Neighborhood center. F Specific Plan encourages intensification of land uses while resp Grand Avenue. To the east of US-101, the Eastern Neighborhood an comprises the other half of the study area. The Specific Plan fo and Silicon Valley, and the biotechnology hub for a high-density Transit Office/R&D core is on an area of taller buildings for co facilities due to its high visibility from the airport and vario addition to these subareas, the Specific Plan also identifies ar prime opportunity zones for change. These areas of focus include Downtown development, eastern development employment district, C and Grand Avenue extension, and Downtown public realm improvemen improvements within these areas of focus include, but are not li business and public open spaces; supporting transit and Downtown residential opportunities in the Downtown area; increasing devel trends in the East of 101 area; providing significant office/R&D proximity to Downtown and the Caltrain station; improving Downto increasing transit ridership with robust employment and resident Grand Avenue as the economically vital historic core of South Sa City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics The existing Downtown and East of 101 subareas are currently com heights and aesthetic quality and lack a cohesive grid street ne and both subareas are deteriorated in certain locations and gene and commercial activity. Implementation of the Station Area Spec guidelines and standards that would improve the overall aestheti The guiding principles from the Specific Plan that are relevant Principle 3 Preserve and enhance the character of existing Downtown neighbo continuing to encourage modest intensification of use as currently allowed Principle 7 Focus public investments in the historic core of the City, alon from Airport Boulevard to Spruce, and on adjoining streets- the P Priority Zone- to create an attractive pedestrian environment to businesses Downtown. Principle 9 Require pedestrian-oriented ground level retail and services us Avenue and in the neighborhood center on Linden between Californi Juniper Avenues. Encourage ground level retail in other areas, e Downtown Transit Core. Principle 13 Allow retail uses along the Grand Avenue extension to provide a office population and a strong visual and physical linkage to the the west. Principle 14 Redesign Grand Avenue to accommodate wider sidewalks and an impr streetscape that will better support the retail environment of th Principle 17 Throughout the Specific Plan area, provide an attractive and acc realm of improved sidewalks, streetscapes, pedestrian crossings, pl spaces. Principle 18 Within the Pedestrian Priority Zone, implement street and inters improvements to create a safe and attractive environment for pedestri Principle 22 Create a vibrant, safe plaza to serve residents, visitors and Do Principle 24 Ensure new development in the Eastern Neighborhood provides a si amount of publicly accessible open space within the development c new office, R&D, or supporting uses. Principle 25 Improve the public realm of sidewalks and adjoining open spaces Specific Plan study area and particularly within the Pedestrian Pri create an attractive pedestrian environment. Principle 26 Create a street tree plan that responds to the streetscape defin unique neighborhood streets defined by street tree type. Principle 27 Provide suitable lighting throughout the study area, with a part Downtown, to create a comfortable environment that is suited to a wide land uses and retail activities. Principle 45 Building heights will be greatest within ¼ mile of the Caltrain highest densities of residents and employees within an easy walk of t service. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics Principle 46 Heights will transition from the Downtown core near the Caltrai to the outer edges of the half mile radius to respect the existing neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown. Principle 47 Heights on the north and south edges of the study area will mai heights currently found in the existing regulatory documents. Principle 48 Within the pedestrian core of Downtown, continue the urban patt on Grand Avenue by requiring minimal to no setbacks on key streets. Principle 49 In the Eastern Neighborhood, require a development pattern simi Downtown, with minimum setbacks and active ground floor uses to create attractive pedestrian environment. Implementation of the Specific Plan would be beneficial to the s development opportunities, refresh and update the existing build themes, and overall make the study area more attractive to entic Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would not degrade of the site and its surroundings. This impact would be , and no mitigation is required. 4.1.4Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetic study area. The analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative however, the primary contributor to potential visual changes in project, since it encompasses approximately 300 acres of residen technology, and mixed industry corridors. Threshold Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on As described above under Impact 4.1-1, development of the proposed project would not block existing Francisco Bay. Focal views are site-specific, and visual impacts are generally proposed project, where views from the project area are more lik possible that structures associated with cumulative projects cou focal views in the City, the combination of existing regulations severely restricts the possibility that future development would features within the City. Therefore, cumulative impacts on sceni. Threshold Would the project substantially damage scenic resource to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a st As described above, no portions of the highways in the vicinity scenic corridors under the State Scenic Highway program. In addi Plan is to revitalize Downtown to be a vibrant and successful co City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.1-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.1 Aesthetics historic building fabric of the area. The Specific Plan proposes historic buildings and character within the study area. Other in with General Plan regulations and policies, which hold all new d throughout the City. Therefore, cumulative impacts on scenic res would be . Threshold Would the project substantially degrade the existing v site and its surroundings? The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect Instead, the Specific Plan is designed to enhance the overall ae the Downtown area and creating a transit-oriented plan that woul study area in order to attract optimal pedestrian and commercial areas surrounding the study area would constitute further intens City, and generally future projects would be designed to enhance However, design review would consider the types and placement of the City such that changes in land use would not substantially d these areas would be protected and enhanced. Therefore, the cumu quality would be 4.1.5References Brady and Associates. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, Adopted by the City of South San Francisco in July 1994. http://ca-southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/Vi (accessed November 13, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.1-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality 4.2AIR QUALITY This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff of the proposed project. One comment letter addressing air quali County Health System in response to the notice of preparation (N project. Data for this section were taken from the project-specific traff the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Q 2010, 2012). Full reference-list entries for all cited materials 4.2.1Environmental Setting South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality, due large a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to quickly disperse air pollutants. Within South San Francisco, cer result in pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These arUS-101, Interstate 280 (I-280), and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addi southeast exposes the City to emissions from the San Francisco I Francisco n.d.). Climate South San Francisco and the Downtown South San Francisco Station are located in San Mateo County, within the nine-county San Fran Specifically, the study area is located within the Peninsula cli extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The locat throughout the center of the Peninsula has great influence on th mountains, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end elevation in South San Francisco, block the typical high incidence o along the coast. Warmer temperatures and fewer foggy days charac peninsula, where the marine layer is blocked by the ridgeline to marine layer is able to flow across most of San Francisco due to Francisco area, the marine air is able to penetrate the bay thro Gap. The large- egional meteorological conditions are dominated by the semi-perm high pressure area in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which is in lar summers and mild, moderately wet winters. This pressure system i breeze that tends to provide fresh air to the Bay Area. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Region-wide temperature inversions, caused by warm air positione prohibit vertical mixing of air. Thermal inversions may be cause surface moving inland from the Golden Gate or by rapid cooling o causes the air close to the surface to rapidly cool. Air polluti inversions are strong and winds are light. Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour (mp higher wind speeds in the study area due to the low-lying areas in th winds in the peninsula are westerly and in the study area the wi These winds typically dilute pollutants and transport them away Average maximum temperatures during summer in the area are in th while minimum winter temperatures are approximately low 40s°F. Criteria Air Pollutants Air pollutant emissions within the Bay Area are generated by sta sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and a identified location and are usually associated with manufacturin combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources inclu heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to e tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources incl and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources accoun emissions within the Basin. Air pollutants can also be generated fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspen To protect the public health and welfare, the federal and state gov air pollutants and a host of air toxics and established ambient Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The standards for these pollutants, ozone, CO, PM, SO, and lead are shown in the left hand column of 2 Table 4.2-1 (Summary of Ambient Air Quality at San Francisco-Arkansas Str pollutants are described as follows: Ozone A gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), whi referred to as reactive organic gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides) undergo slow X photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Meteorologi produce high concentrations of ozone are direct sunshine, early morning areas, high ground surface temperatures, strong and low morning vertical mixing during the day, and daytime subsidence that stre Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer mon light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable. Carbon Monoxide (CO)A colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winte South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground level from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles o primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest ambient CO concen near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Respirable Particulate Matter (PM) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM)Extremely small 102.5 suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or sm of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally oc areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel so and brakes, and construction activities. Sulfur dioxide (SO)A colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the a 2 a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fu processes occurring at plants and refineries. Although sulfur di reduced to levels well below state and national standards, furth SO is a precursor to sulfates. Sulfates, pollutants that can have 2 and the environment, are a particulate formed through the photoc. 2 Lead Lead occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combust is the primary source of airborne lead in the Basin. The use of permitted for on-road motor vehicles; therefore, most lead combu with off-road vehicles such as racecars and some airplanes. Othe manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, smelters. Existing Regional Air Quality Measurements of ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutant Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air R classify the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, t there are not enough data available to determine whether the sta Air quality in the basin is monitored by the BAAQMD, which opera pollution monitoring stations to determine if the federal and st emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. Th ) federal standards, and is considered 2.5 ), and PM. It is in 102.5 , and in 10 ambient air quality standards for SO, Pb, and NO, which is a form of NO. 22X Existing Local Air Quality The BAAQMD monitors ambient air pollutant concentrations through located throughout the Bay Area. While there is no monitoring st City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street approximately 8 miles from the study area. Table 4.2-1 (Summary of Ambient Air Quality at San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station) identifies the national and state relevant air pollutants along with the ambient pollutant concent Arkansas Street-San Francisco monitoring station through the per st not conducted at this station for SO. The closest site that monitors SO is the Oakland-West 1100 21 22 Street site, located approximately 14 miles northwest of the pro data from this site is 2 provided in Table 4.2-1. As shown in Table 4.2-1, ambient PM and NO concentrations violated the state standard once at the 10X Arkansas Street station during the 20102012 period. Ambient PM concentrations exceed the federal 2.5 standard three times in 2010, twice in 2011, and once in 2012. N, CO, or 3 SO during the three year period. For carbon monoxide, a product of X South San Francisco meets state and federal standards; however, congested intersections and highway segments would potentially b indicates. Existing Localized CO Concentrations Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspot schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more suscept air quality-related health problems than the general public. Res because people in residential areas are often at home for extend exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas a poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recre respiratory function. Residences are located throughout the stud areas. Localized CO concentrations are calculated based on a simplified developed by BAAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a scree potential CO hotspot. This methodology assumes worst-case condit maximum, worst-case CO concentrations. Under existing conditions operate at level of service (LOS) F is analyzed. As all other in better, localized CO concentrations at those intersections would be emissions are compared with adopted federal and state ambient ai4.2-2 (Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-1 Summary of Ambient Air Quality at San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station Year Air Pollutants Monitored at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Monitoring Station 2010 2011 2012 Ozone (O) 3 Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.079 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.069 ppm Days exceeding federal 0.12 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding state 0.09 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 0.051 ppm 0.054 ppm 0.048 ppm Days exceeding federal 0.08 ppm 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM) 10 Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 39.7 µg/m 45.6 µg/m 50.6 µg/m 333 No. of days exceeding federal 150 µg/m 24-hour standard 0 0 0 3 Days exceeding state 50 µg/m 24-hour standard 0 0 1 3 Annual arithmetic mean (AAM) 19.3 µg/m 19.5 µg/m 17.5 µg/m 333 Does measured AAM exceed federal 50.0 µg/m AAM standard? No No No 3 Does measured AAM exceed state 20.0 µg/m AAM standard? No No No 3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 45.3 µg/m 47.5 µg/m 35.7 µg/m 333 No. of days exceeding federal 65 µg/m 24-hour standard 3 2 1 3 Federal and state AAM 10.5 µg/m 9.5 µg/m 8.2 µg/m 333 Does measured AAM exceed federal 15.0 µg/m AAM standard? No No No 3 Does measured AAM exceed state 12.0 µg/m AAM standard? No No No 3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 1.37 ppm 1.20 ppm 1.19 ppm Days exceeding federal 35.0 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding state 20.0 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 1.65 ppm 1.46 ppm 1.26 ppm Number of days exceeding federal and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO) 2 Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.09 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Days exceeding state 0.25 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 1 AAM 0.013 ppm 0.014 ppm 0.013 ppm Does measured AAM exceed federal 0.0534 ppm AAM standard? No No No Sulfur Dioxide (SO) 2 Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 0.004 * * Days exceeding federal 0.14 ppm 24-hour standard 0 N/A N/A Days exceeding state 0.04 ppm 24-hour standard 0 N/A N/A SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, iADAM: Air Quality Data Statisti ppm = parts by volume per million of air; µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter; N/A = no monitoring performed for 3 * Indicates there was insufficient data available to determine the City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-2 Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1-Hour CO 8-Hour CO Exceeds Intersection Concentration (ppm) Concentration (ppm) Standard? 20.0 (State) Air Quality Standard 9.0 (State and Federal) 35.0 (Federal) Baden Ave/Linden Ave 1.6 1.1 No SOURCE: CALINE 4 using EMFAC 2011 emission factors (see Appendix B for model output sheets). CO = carbon monoxide Modeling assumptions: One-hour carbon monoxide concentrations were calculated using the wo-case wind angle scenario in the CALINE 4 model. Receptor locations we centerline. Carbon monoxide emission factors were generated using the EMFAC 2011 model for year for the total vehicle mix during conditions in January at a temp percent relative humidity. The assumed vehicle speed is 5 miles per hour. An ambi-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 1.37 ppm was used to reflect ambient conditions. The 8-Hour carbon monoxide concentration is based on a persistence factor of 0.7 for urban Existing Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants The Title V Program under the CAA requires the BAAQMD to issue comprehensi to facilities that emit significant amounts of air pollutants. T which may be sources of TACs. However, there are currently no Ti Francisco. The BAAQMD maintains an inventory of substantial stationar the Bay Area. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, sources that exceeded trigger threshold listed within South San cleaners. The remaining sources include the South San Francisco- Plant, the Shell Oil Company Distribution Plant, and the Superio 4.2.2Regulatory Framework Federal USEPA is the federal agency responsible for setting and enforcin standards for atmospheric pollutants. USEPA regulates emission s authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, an As part of its enforcement responsibilities, USEPA requires each s prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that descri the federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The SIP plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to of performance standards and market-based programs. Clean Air Act The CAA, as amended, establishes air quality standards for sever divided into primary standards and secondary standards. Primary health, and secondary standards are intended to protect public w reduction, soiling, nuisance, and other forms of damage. The CAA prepared for nonattainment areas illustrating how the federal ai South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Regulation of TACs is achieved through federal and state control Amendments offered a comprehensive plan for achieving significan stationary source emissions of certain designated Hazardous Air million cancer risk from TACs. State The California ARB, a part of the California Environmental Prote responsible for the coordination and administration of both fede programs within California. In this capacity, the California ARB quality standards, compiles emission inventories, develops sugge oversight of local programs. The California ARB establishes emis in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol pai various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifi emissions. California Clean Air Act The CCAA of 1988 requires nonattainment areas to achieve and mai standards by the earliest practicable date. Local air districts attaining the state ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and closely with the federal government and the local air districts. implemented to reduce ozone and fine particulate matter (PM) emissions to meet federal standards. 2.5 Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 Regulation of TACs is achieved through federal and state control Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588), Cali Sections 44300 et seq. provide for the regulation of over 200 air toxics legislation in the state. California ARB has published the Risk Reduction Pl Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. This p as the predominant TAC in California and identifies methods for stationary, and area-wide sources. California ARB has also prepa Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2 guidelines for siting sensitive land uses near sources of mobile matter (DPM). Regional Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive a San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. To that end, the BAAQMD, a reg Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Tra and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal a City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting re inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through e necessary. In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to addre CCAA. The Plan has been updated three times, in 1994, 1997, and improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner and increased commute alternatives. The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from s and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by pr Plans, or the Bay Area Ozone Strategy, and Clean Air Plans that accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution economy. The Ozone Strategies are prepared for the federal ozone prepared for the state ozone standards. The most recent Bay Area BAAQMD Board of Directors in January 2006 and demonstrates how t planning requirements for the State one-hour ozone standard and through the proposed control strategy. The control strategy incl to be implemented through Air District regulations; mobile sourc through incentive programs and other activities; and transportat through transportation programs in cooperation with Metropolitan governments, transit agencies and others. The current regional C of Directors on September 15, 2010. It defines a control strateg implement to (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentra (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants t an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. The Clean Air Plan precursors, PM, air toxics, and GHGs. 2.5 2, Rule 2, and Air Toxics Risk Management Policy require that new or modified stationary sources of air po undergo permit review for Best Available Control Technology (BAC Technology for Toxics (TBACT) when certain thresholds are exceed regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and fue BACT is defined as the most stringent emissions control which, f has been achieved in practice, identified in a State Implementat BAAQMD to be technologically achievable and cost-effective. To minimize the emissions of TACs, the BAAQMD requires laborator that the health risk resulting from emissions of TACs is less th million or follow Responsible Laboratory Management Practices (R of research, estimating TAC emissions and demonstrating low risk RLMPs is fairly straightforward. Moreover, the RLMPs are based o from Stanford University and the University of California, San F South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Local South San Francisco General Plan Local jurisdictions, such as the City of South San Francisco, ha reduce air pollution through their police power and decision-mak responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions r City of South San Francisco is also responsible for the implemen measures as outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Examples of such mea efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. City of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies rec Chapter 7.3 of the South San Francisco General Plan identifies g contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts, and are consistent are outlined as follows: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all fe quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants f where feasible. Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote us automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions gen one another. Cooperate with the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for no their precursors, including CO, ozone, and PM, by implementation of air pollution control 10 measures as required by federal and state statutes. evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quali Guidelines. Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes fireplaces and wood stoves. In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an acti program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining exis In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of pote conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces th The City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and reg Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the BAAQMD and util as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans a jurisdiction. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Consistency Analysis City of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies rec South San Francisco General Plan Chapter 7.3 identifies goals an to regional air quality improvement efforts and that are consistent wit in Impact 4.2-1, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant i violations with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2 and the 2010 Clean Air Plan, and would not hinder implementation of proposed project would not conflict with the goals and policies General Plan. 4.2.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Although the BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality plan authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated within the Bay Area. Instead, the BAAQMD has used its expertise Guidelines to indirectly address these issues in accordance with Ozone Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan. The purpose of the BAA assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in Specifically, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines explain the procedures be followed during environmental review processes required by CE Guidelines provide direction on how to evaluate potential air qu these impacts are adverse, and how to mitigate these impacts. Th this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development consistently throughout the Bay Area, and adverse impacts will b CEQA Guidelines (2012 Guidelines) are applied to the analysis of the exception of quantification of criteria pollutant emissions, The 2012 Guidelines do not include significance thresholds for c BAAQMD most recently updated its thresholds in May 2010 (adopted 2011) in the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document (2010 Guidelin Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the CEQA when it adopted the significance thresholds. The court did were valid on the merits, but found that the adoption of the thr thresholds quality impacts, although lead agencies may rely on the 2012 Gui assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining inf pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures. Lead appropriate air quality thresholds of significance based on subs South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Significance. Based on these recommendations, the City of South Thresholds of Significance and the 2010 Guidelines Thresholds of the significance thresholds outlined in the 2010 Guidelines are proposed project for the following reasons: (1) the 2010 Guideli not analyzed as a project under CEQA, not because of any deficien itself; (2) the 2010 Guidelines represent the best and most rece assessing air quality impacts in the region; and (3) the threshold complies with the Thresholds of Significance identified in the 2 1999 Air District thresholds. Construction and operational emissions associated with the propo CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 computer model, the information provided in Chapter 3 (Project Description), and trip generation rates from the project traffic Appendix B. CalEEMod is a statewide program that estimates air p or tons per year for various land uses, area sources, construction 2007, to calculate motor vehicle emissions. Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile so emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase Specific Plan associated with operation of the land uses accommo emissions generated will include the following: the increase in water heating, utilities operations (including diesel-powered emer emissions associated with operation of additional development in landscape maintenance equipment. To determine if an air quality emissions compared to existing land use operations will be compa identified in the 2010 Guidelines. Localized CO Concentrations for Operation The ambient air quality eff CALINE4 screening model. This methodology assumes worst-case con of maximum worst-case CO concentrations. The evaluation will uti project traffic study, which assumed 25 percent build-out of the included in its entirety as Appendix B. For this analysis, CO concentra intersections determined to operate at a LOS F under existing plus proje representing the heaviest level of traffic congestion, were anal expected to operate at LOS E or better, and would therefore gene Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have air quality if it would do any of the following: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air q City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to violation Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criter region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state amb (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative threshol Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentratio Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of peo Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementa quality plan? Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed project has the potential t or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. T considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of m would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant lev Therefore, this would be a impact. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that would re operational impacts related to air quality violations, would imp the 2010 Clean Air Plan, and would not hinder implementation of consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The 4.2-2. As discussed in this section, operation of the land uses accommodat potential to exceed significance criteria for air quality violat implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2 would be feasible f reductions, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable Table 4.2-3 (Project Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures) co Plan to the applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures. Applicab may be encouraged at a land use planning level, such as encourag in Section 4.4 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Therefore, only contr pollutants and toxic are contaminants are included in Table 4.2-3. Additionally, measures that would be implemented through adoption of new BAAQMD programs and regulations, such as stationary emissions sources or individual consumer choices, do because implementation of the project would not help or hinder d proposed project does not specifically propose any new stationar mandate individual consumer choices, such as the decision to pur development would be required to comply with all applicable BAAQ time a specific project is proposed. Therefore, these control me4.2-3. As shown in Table 4.2-3, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Control Measures and Implementation Actions and would not hinder implementation actions. However as emissions have the potential proposed project also has the potential to conflict with the ach requirements under the Clean Air Plan. Table 4.2-3 Project Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures 2010 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Applicable Implementation Actions Proposed Project Consistency TCM C-1Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Local governments are encouraged Specific Plan Section 5 (Circulation and Reduction Programs: This measure will to require mitigation of vehicle travel Parking) contains guiding principles and support voluntary efforts by Bay Area employers as part of new development policies to encourage rideshare, transit, to encourage their employees to use alternative approval, adopt transit benefits cycling and walking trips. New and improved commute modes, such as transit, ridesharing, ordinances in order to reduce out-of-bicycle and pedestrian improvements are bicycling, walking, telecommuting, etc. pocket transit costs to employees, proposed throughout the area, including a and develop innovative ways to new Grand Avenue Extension that would encourage rideshare, transit, cycling provide direct pedestrian and bicycle access and walking for work trips. to the Caltrain station. The plan implements Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are described in greater detail in the analysis of the Control Measures below. The Specific Plan also includes policies to work with employers to develop shuttle connections and expand transit in the study area. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this Control Measure. TCM C-2Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Local governments to work with MTC The Specific Plan includes extensive bicycle Routes to Transit Programs: This measure will to implement safe access for and pedestrian improvements to improve facilitate safe routes to schools and transit by pedestrians and cyclists to schools safety in the area. Proposed safety features providing funds and working with transportation and transit. include new bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle agencies, local governments, schools, and lanes to provide additional separation with communities to implement safe access for vehicular traffic, the Grand Avenue Extension pedestrians and cyclists. Likely projects will that would provide protected pedestrian and include implementation of bicycle facilities, such bicycle access to the Caltrain station, as lanes, routes, paths, and parking, and conversion of angled parking to parallel improvements to pedestrian facilities, such as parking, and a new bikeway along the Colma sidewalks/paths, benches, reduced street width, Creek Canal. Pedestrian improvements reduced intersection turning radii, crosswalks would include a pedestrian priority area on with activated signals, curb extensions/bulbs, Grand Avenue where curb cuts would be buffers between sidewalks and traffic lanes and prohibited, limiting vehicular access points on streets trees. several streets, and pedestrian-only pathways. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this Control Measure. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-3 Project Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures 2010 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Applicable Implementation Actions Proposed Project Consistency TCM D-1Bicycle Access and Facilities Cities and counties should implement The Specific Plan builds on the City Bicycle Improvements: TCM D-1 will expand bicycle their bicycle plans, provide a Master Plan. The Specific Plan proposes new facilities serving employment sites, educational comprehensive network of bicycle bicycle paths and lanes throughout the study and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping lanes, routes, and pathways, and area, including off-street facilities at the districts, and other activity centers. Typical provide secure bicycle parking. Grand Avenue extension and along the improvements include bike lanes, routes, paths, Colma Canal. The Specific Plan also includes Caltrans, Congestion Management and bicycle parking facilities. This TCM also bicycle parking requirements for residential, Agencies and local governments includes improving bicycle access to transit and commercial, and office uses. As described supporting the annual Bike to Work event. under the previous Control Measures, the policies to ensure that cyclists and Specific Plan includes improved pedestrian pedestrians are safely and bicycle safety to encourage complete accommodated on all streets and streets. Therefore, the proposed project roads. would be consistent with this Control Measure. TCM D-2Pedestrian Access and Facilities Cities and counties should provide a The Specific Plan proposes pedestrian facility Improvements: TCM D-2 will improve comprehensive network of facilities, improvements throughout the area to pedestrian facilities and encourage walking by including sidewalks, pathways and encourage pedestrian trips and improve funding projects that improve pedestrian access provide for pedestrian access in their safety. Pedestrian Priority Streets and Alleys to transit, employment and major activity development plans. are designated along major roadways to centers. Improvements may include provide enhanced pedestrian access to the Local governments are encouraged sidewalks/paths, benches, reduced street width, Caltrain Station and amenities throughout the to require pedestrian access and reduced intersection turning radii, crosswalks area. Improvements would be made to amenities as a condition of approval with activated signals, curb extensions/bulbs, increase pedestrian visibility to vehicle, such of new development projects, such buffers between sidewalks and traffic lanes, and as sidewalk bulb-outs, and encourage as street trees, furniture, lighting, street trees. pedestrian-oriented development to create shelter for transit patrons and inviting inviting walkways. Amenities such as environments for walking. furniture are encouraged to clearly delineate Local governments should adopt pedestrian areas. As previously described, land use policies that support more the Specific Plan includes improved compact, infill development to make pedestrian and bicycle safety to encourage neighborhoods more walkable. complete streets. Caltrans, Congestion Management The study area is currently developed, and it Agencies and local governments is the vision of the plan to promote infill development and compact, intensified development to promote a vibrant, pedestrian policies to ensure that cyclists and oriented community. Therefore, the proposed pedestrians are safely project would be consistent with this Control accommodated on all streets and Measure. roads. TCM D-3Local Land Use Strategies: TCM Local governments are encouraged As described under previous Control D-3 will support and promote land use patterns, to update general plans and area Measures, the proposed project would policies, and infrastructure investments that plans to promote infill development support infill development and encourage support higher density mixed-use, residential and support land use that allows nonvehicular trips. and employment development near transit in residents and workers to walk, The Specific Plan includes parking policies order to facilitate walking, bicycling and transit bicycle, and take transit to reach specific to the area that would allow for use. destinations, instead of relying on reduced parking requirements in areas private automobiles. supported by transit. Other parking policies Local governments are encouraged include metered parking, parking fees, and to revise parking standards required parking time limits. Parking maximums and for new development and update shared parking are also encouraged to avoid parking policies. (See TCM E-2) excessive parking. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this Control Measure. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-3 Project Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures 2010 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Applicable Implementation Actions Proposed Project Consistency TCM E-2Promote Parking Policies to Local agencies are encouraged to As discussed in the previous Control Reduce Motor Vehicle Travel: Parking policies adopt innovative parking strategies, Measure, the Specific Plan includes and practices have a profound impact on vehicle including: innovative parking strategies. In addition to travel and mode choice, as well as land use those described above, the Specific Plan Eliminate or reduce minimum patterns and the quality of the built environment. encourages residential permit parking, parking requirements. Parking policies are also an important tool in unbundled parking, car sharing programs, Limit the supply of off-street implementing focused growth strategies. This and bike sharing programs. Therefore, the parking in transit-oriented areas. control measure outlines how the Air District, in proposed project would be consistent with Encourage developers and cooperation with its regional agency partners, this Control Measure. property owners to unbundle the will (1) take actions at the regional level to price of parking spaces from implement parking policies that will benefit air rents and purchase prices. quality, and (2) encourage and support local agency parking policies to reduce motor vehicle Promote shared parking by travel and promote focused growth. different users. Implement market-rate pricing for off-street parking and consider residential permit programs to alleviate spillover concerns. Implement performance-based pricing for curb parking in high- use areas. Implement parking assessment districts that use revenue from street parking to fund pedestrian and streetscape improvements. Adopt design guidelines and policies to minimize surface area for parking. Implement car-sharing and bike- sharing programs in appropriate locations in exchange for reduced parking requirements, and provide as a benefit to renters. Encourage a coordinated parking policy approach among jurisdictions to minimize spillover to other jurisdictions and fears of unfair competition. SOURCE: BAAQMD, Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Final Clean Air Plan, Volume II (September 15, 2010). The proposed project would implement the applicable control meas would not hinder implementation of any control measure. However, in significant and unavoidable long-term operational impacts rel implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-2. Therefore, this im . No additional mitigation is feasible. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or existing or projected air quality violation? Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed project would violate an ai standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact, but not t than-significant level for construction activities. Therefore, t impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in both cons emissions. Construction emissions include those associated with demolition of old buildings and structures for redevelopment, an improvements to support new land uses. Operational emissions inc generated by new development and operation of land uses, includi industrial development, that would be accommodated by the propos Construction Emissions Construction activities would result in temporary increases in a would be generated in the form of fugitive dust emissions from e building demolition, and exhaust emissions from operation of hea construction. Paving activities would emit ROGs during off-gassi For the purposes of modeling a worst-case construction scenario, associated with the Specific Plan would take place over a 20-yea construction occurring each year. At the end of 20-year time fra 511,780 sf of new business commercial, 21,250 sf of new industrial, 268, 1,185,049 of new research and development are anticipated to be developed within the study area. Additionally, existing land uses would be demolished and redevel emissions from redevelopment as well as new development, an area 25 percent of existing development is assumed to be demolished and period. Using this approach, it is assumed that 90 dwelling unit nonresidential uses would be constructed every year for 20 years. A detai provided in Appendix B. Model defaults were used to estimate emi equipment. Construction emission estimates include compliance with the BAAQ Mitigation Measures that are recommended for all projects. Table 4.2-4 (Construction Daily Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions) presents maximum daily air pollutant emissions for each construction phas construction under the proposed project. It is assumed that each occur consecutively. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-4 Construction Daily Maximum Air Pollutant Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Construction Phase ROG NO CO SO PM PM xX102.5 Demolition 5 50 38 <1 3 2 Fine Grading 9 108 95 <1 10 6 a Trenching 2 17 12 <1 1 1 Building 5 34 29 <1 3 2 Paving 2 25 16 <1 2 1 Architectural Coating 74 3 3 <1 <1 <1 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 bb Significant Impact? Yes Yes No No SOURCE: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 (see Appendix for model output). Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exa B. a. Includes watering twice daily and an on-site speed limit of 15 miles per hour in compliance with BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Assumes that the entire development acreage percent of the area would be excavated to a depth of 5 feet and exported offsit b. BAAQMD applies these thresholds only to exhaust emissions. For the purposes of this programmatic analysis, conservatively applied to total emissions from fugitive dust and The estimate of construction emissions indicates that developmen would result in significant emissions of ROGs and NO during construction. Therefore, a potentially X significant impact would occur. Mitigation measure MM4.2-1 requi Additional Construction Mitigation Measures as necessary for ind emissions to below significance thresholds. Emissions reductions measures was quantified using CalEEMod based on the methodology Guidelines. Reductions are provided in Table 4.2-5 (Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions). As shown in Table 4.2-5, implementation of the Additional Construction Mitigation Mea reduce ROG emissions to below a level of significance, but NO emissions would still potentially exceed X the threshold. However, it is useful to keep in mind that these amounts of development occurring each year. Realistically, const be greater or lower depending on how development is implemented. Table 4.2-5 Mitigated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Scenario ROG NO CO SO PM PM XX102.5 Worst-Case Maximum Daily Emissions 74 108 95 <1 10 6 Worst-Case Maximum Daily Emissions with Implementation of MM4.2-1 41 100 95 <1 9 5 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No Yes No No SOURCE: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 (see Appendix B for model output). Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exact values are provided in Appendix B. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Construction emissions for all future development under the Spe the start of construction. For projects where construction emiss recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD Add Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria criteria. Mitigation reductions shall be quantified prior to the adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissio Mitigation Measures include the following: 1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate t moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab 2. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be s speeds exceed 20 mph. 3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the wind areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 per 4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass see areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegeta 5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground- on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities sh amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washe 7. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road sha compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 8. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed t roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. 9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipm 10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-roa 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent reduction and 45 percent X PM reduction compared to the most recent California ARB fleet avera reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-em fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devi and/or other options as such become available. 11. Use low-ROG coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regula Coatings). 12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall Control Technology for emission reductions of NO and PM. X 13. standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Operational Emissions Development under the Specific Plan would result in operational and vehicular sources, as described below. Impacts associated wi project are based on the net increase in development between exi redevelopment timeframe. Existing development within the study a South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality would be accommodated under the plan are shown in Table 4.2-6 (Existing and Proposed Land Uses). Existing operational emissions are shown in Table 4.2-7 (Operational Daily Maximum Emissions Existing). Table 4.2-6 Existing and Proposed Land Uses Land Use Designation Existing Conditions Additional Development Under Specific Plan Residential 1,426 dwelling units 1,435 dwelling units Downtown Commercial 602,643 sf Auto-serving Commercial 54,664 sf Business Commercial 129,884 sf 511,780 sf Hotel 285,165 sf Industrial 797,055 sf 21,250 sf Institutional 150,142 sf Commercial 268,800 sf Office Office/R&D 1,185,049 sf Institutional (sf) 150,142 Table 4.2-7 Operational Daily Maximum EmissionsExisting Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Emission Source ROG NO CO SO PM PM x2102.5 Area Sources Natural Gas 4 39 25 <1 3 3 Landscape 4 1 122 <1 1 1 Consumer Products 86 Architectural Coatings 13 Hearths 506 7 625 <1 89 89 Area Source Subtotal 613 47 772 1 Vehicular Sources 236 576 2,110 3 217 64 Total Existing 849 623 2,882 4 310 157 SOURCE: CalEEMod, Version 2013.2.2. Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exact values are provided in Appendix B. The CalEEMod air quality model was used to estimate operational vehicular sources. The net change in emissions that would occur by subtracting the emissions associated with existing developmen with the 20-year build-out of the proposed project. Area sources with the proposed project include fuel combustion emissions from combustion emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, fuel City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-19 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality ROG emissions from periodic repainting of interior and exterior associated with the operation of the land uses accommodated by t 4 to regional emissions of NO, ROG, CO, sulfur oxide (SO), PM, and PM from fuel combustion. XX2.510 The net increase in estimated operational air pollutant emission Specific Plan is shown in Table 4.2-8 (Operational Daily Maximum EmissionsProposed Project). Table 4.2-8 Operational Daily Maximum EmissionsProposed Project Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Emission Source ROG NO CO SO PM PM x2102.5 Area Sources Natural Gas 8 73 46 <1 6 6 Landscape 7 3 238 <1 1 1 Consumer Products 159 Architectural Coatings 24 Hearths 508 7 625 <1 90 90 Area Source Subtotal 706 83 909 0 97 97 Vehicular Sources 197 409 1,746 5 323 91 a Total Specific Plan Build-Out 903 492 2,655 6 420 188 Existing Conditions (2012 baseline) 849 623 2,882 4 310 157 Net Change from Baseline 54 -131 -227 2 110 31 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No Yes No SOURCE: CalEEMod, Version 2013.2.2. Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exa B. a.Vehicular emissions would decrease over time due to increasingly stringent emissions requirements. 2022 was used for the analysis to average the near-term vehicular emission that would be similar to existing condit with the reduced vehicular emissions that would be anticipated in 2032. As shown in Table 4.2-8, development under the proposed project would result in incre, 10 and PM emissions over the 20-year planning horizon. Area source emissi and CO would 2.5X also result from anticipated maximum development under the plan area). However, the anticipated increases in vehicle efficiencies by NO and CO emissions from vehicles compared to existing conditions X increase in vehicle use. Implementation of the Specific Plan wou, X CO, SO, and PM emissions because emissions of NO and CO would be reduced at the planning 22.5x horizon of the plan compared to existing conditions, and emissio, and PM would not 22.5 exceed the significance threshold. However, the proposed project 10 Trip generation used in the model was based on the Fehr & Peers,South San Francisco Station Area Land Use Plan: EIR 4 Transportation Analysis assumptions (February 14 2014). The transportation analysis uses internal project inform as land use mix, project area, intersection density, and transit data such as average household size and vehicle ownership, emplo within a 30-minute transit trip to determine the trip rates for South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-20 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality emissions that would exceed the significance thresholds. Current use and overall size of individual projects under the Specific P operational emissions cannot be quantified at the planning level Plan would be required to determine whether an individual projec particulate matter emissions to a level that would exceed the si process. Therefore, impacts related to emissions of PM during project operation are potentially 10 significant. The BAAQMD recommends mitigation measures for reducing operation pollutant in its CEQA Guidelines. The recommended mitigation mea reduce vehicle trips, including a mix of land uses, providing re and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These measures have alrea accounted for in the traffic analysis for the project. The BAAQM cannot be implemented at a program level, but are available as o projects to reduce particulate matter emissions. Mitigation meas implementation of these recommendations as necessary to reduce i significant level. Reductions associated with these measures wer and are provided in Table 4.2-9 (Mitigated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions). As shown in Table 4.2-9, the BAAQMD recommended mitigation measures would reduce oper less than significant level. Table 4.2-9 Mitigated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day) Scenario ROG NO CO SO PM PM X2102.5 Mitigated Total Specific Plan Emissions 897 452 2,516 5 378 177 Existing Conditions (2012 baseline) 849 623 2,882 4 310 157 Net Change from Baseline 48 -171 -366 1 68 20 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant Impact? No No No No No No SOURCE: CalEEMod, Version 2013.2.2. Emission quantities are rounded to the nearest whole number. Exa B. Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development p applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteri criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will b building permit to demonstrate that adequate measures have been emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited 1. Increase on-street parking fees. 2. Daily parking charge for employees. 3. - commute. 4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-21 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality 5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuti 6. Provide a ridesharing program. Construction and operations emissions of criteria air pollutants a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation m reduce operational emissions to a less-than-significant level; h project developed under the Specific Plan would be able to imple all criteria pollutant impacts to less-than-significant levels, considered potentially significant. While implementation of miti1 have the potential to reduce air pollutant emissions from constr BAAQMD construction mitigation measures, and operation through t trips, they cannot guarantee that emissions would be lessened to even with implementation of mitigation, construction and operati impacts. Threshold Would the project result in a cumulatively considerabl pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emiss quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a c considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient ai standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). This is considered a potential significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would this impact to a level. federal standards, and is 2.5 andards for ozone, PM, and PM. According to the 102.5 BAAQMD, a project would be cumulatively significant if operation r Impact 4.2-2, and shown in Table 4.2-8 (Operational Daily Maximum EmissionsProposed Project), operation of the proposed project would have the potential to re. 10 This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, im MM4.2-2 would reduce this impact to by reducing operational emissions to below the significance thresholds. Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substa Impact 4.2-4 Implementation of the proposed project would expose sensit to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is considered a po significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would this impact to a level. Sensitive receptors include day care centers, schools, retiremen residential homes, or other facilities that may house individual South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-22 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality adversely impacted by changes in air quality. The two primary po effects for land development projects are carbon monoxide and TA pollutants are described below. Localized CO Concentrations The CALINE4 model was used to predict CO concentrations with pro intersections that would operate at a LOS F with implementation modeled at 30 feet from the roadway. The results of these calculations a4.2-10 (Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations). Future CO concentrations alon operate at LOS F with implementation of the project would not ex 8-hour ambient air quality standards for CO. Therefore, implementa any sensitive receptors located in close proximity to these inte concentrations. This impact would be . Table 4.2-10 Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1-Hour CO 8-Hour CO Intersection Impact? Concentration (ppm) Concentration (ppm) 20.0 (State) Significance Threshold 9.0 (State and Federal) 35.0 (Federal) East Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd 1.9 1.3 No Grand Ave/Linden Ave 1.7 1.2 No Grand Ave/Airport Blvd 1.8 1.3 No Baden Ave/Linden Ave 1.6 1.1 No San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd 1.8 1.3 No Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd 1.8 1.3 No SOURCE: CALINE 4 using EMFAC 2011 emission factors (see Appendix B for model output sheets) CO = carbon monoxide Modeling assumptions: One-hour carbon monoxide concentrations were calculated using the wo-case wind angle scenario in the CALINE 4 model. Receptor locations were se Carbon monoxide emission factors were generated using the EMFAC 2011 model for year 2012 for the total vehicle mix during conditions in January at a temperature of 40° percent relative humidity. The assumed vehicle speed is 5 miles per hour. An ambient 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration of 1.37 ppm was used to reflect ambient conditions. The 8-Hour carbon monoxide concentration is based on a persistence factor of 0.7 for urban uses (Caltrans 1998). Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, common stationary sourc gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and diesel backup generators, w requirements. Industrial operations may also result in permitted common source of TACs in communities is diesel particulate matte motor vehicles on freeways and roads such as trucks and cars, an equipment, ships and trains. Potential stationary sources of TACs in the study area include m Avenue, along the northern edge of the study area along the PG&E City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-23 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality line. With implementation of the Specific Plan, these areas woul nonresidential use. No residential land uses or other sensitive r Station. As such, a significant increase in exposure of sensitiv area. The proposed Downtown High Density Residential area propos adjacent to the existing industrial avenue located south of Rail residential development may be accommodated north of Armour Aven operations that are stationary sources of TACs are subject to pe are already present adjacent to Railroad Avenue and industrial u therefore, existing industrial sources are permitted to minimize new industrial land uses south of Railroad Avenue would be requi BAAQMD emissions requirements in order to obtain a permit to ope corridor would be redesignated for commercial use. Therefore, th a substantial increase in risk of exposure to TAC emissions from Gas stations and dry cleaners are located throughout the area. T receptors not be sited within 300 feet of any dry cleaning opera of 3.6 million gallons per year. A 50 foot separation is recomme The Specific Plan proposes to increase the density of residences Therefore, new sensitive receptors may be located within the scr and gas station operations. Likewise, new gas stations and dry c within the screening distances of existing sensitive receptors. required at the time new land uses are specifically proposed in risk would occur. A requirement for future health risk assessmen project in order to reduce potential impacts to less than signif No large distribution centers exist in the area or would be acco and new commercial and industrial operations would require inter However, the ARB determined that ARB limits on unnecessary idlin vehicles, combined with increasingly more stringent exhaust stan from DPM emissions so that a significant health risk would not o and industrial operations. The ARB limits are state regulation a projects. Mobile sources of DPM with the potential to result in significan the Caltrain rail line. The California ARB Air Quality and Land roads with 100,000 vehicles per day as a potential source of sig Caltrain locomotives are currently diesel powered. The Peninsula projected to be operational by 2019 and would replace existing d powered trains (Caltrain 2013). With implementation of the elect would result from Caltrain operations. The ARB does not identify source of DPM, only rail yards, although the BAAQMD does recomme receptors adjacent to rail lines to reduce DPM exposure. An area located adjacent to the rail line and may accommodate new high-d accordance with BAAQMD guidelines, landscaping should be planted South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-24 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality residences to minimize DPM exposure. Mitigation is required to e recommendation. According to Caltrans data (2012), traffic volumes on US-101 in the study area exceed 200,000 vehicles per day. The ARB recommends that sensitive land uses should not freeway with more than 100,000 vehicles per day. The Specific Plan wo uses within 500 feet of US-101. Mitigation is required to ensure that new residents are not expo substantial concentrations of DPM. Another source of DPM is construction equipment. Construction wo the study area as build-out of the Specific Plan occurs. As show4.2-4, implementation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant PM or PM emissions during construction. 102.5 Additionally, DPM is considered to contribute to long-term healt would be short-term events. Construction would be spread through receptors would not be continually exposed to DPM from construct emissions would not result in a significant long-term health ris Impacts related to TAC emissions from US-101, gas stations, and dry-cleaning facilities are considered a potentially significant impact. Additionally, mitigation is requ recommendations related to the proximity of residential uses to mitigation measures MM4.2-3 through MM4.2-5 would reduce this im level. Siting Sensitive Receptors near Potential TAC Source. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality professional would introduce new sensitive receptors in the study area within ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced here4.2-11 [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]). Sensitive recept schools, retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in reside house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely Such a project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA by the City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate me risk to below a significant level or the sensitive receptor shal City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-25 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2-11 Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Source Category Advisory Recommendations Freeways and High-Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with Traffic Roads 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit Distribution Centers 300 hours per week) Take into account the configuration of existing distribution cen residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard. Rail Yards Within 1 mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mi approaches. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most Ports heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB o analyses of health risks. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petoleum refineries. Refineries Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending Chrome Platers Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For operations with three or Dry Cleaners Using more machines consult with the local air district. Perchloroethylene Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations. Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as Gasoline Dispensing a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot Facilities separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities. SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005). These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to baance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development prioritie Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation. The relative risk for these categories varies greatly. To determ site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will der time as cleaner technology phases in. These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where informati readily available and are not designed to substitute for more sp recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to the ava Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air polluti considered when siting new sensitive land uses. This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in ge Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perc reasonable preventative actions. Siting of New Toxic Air Contaminant Sources Near Sensitive Recep Prior to approval of any project that includes potential sources of signi to a BAAQMD permit, that is proposed in a close proximity to a s Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared by a qualified air quality pr ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook Table 1-1 (reproduced abov4.2-11 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-26 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality [Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses]), shall be c sources of TAC emissions. Such a proposed project will be consid receptor if it would be located within the siting distance outli Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Sensitive receptors include day c retirement homes, hospitals, medical patients in residential hom individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impac project shall not be considered for approval until an HRA has be City. The methodology for the HRA shall follow the Office of Env Assessment and BAAQMD guidelines for the preparation of HRAs. If health risk is identified, the HRA shall identify appropriate me risk to below a significant level, or the proposed facility shal Threshold Would the project create objectionable odors affecting people? Impact 4.2-5 Implementation of the proposed project would create affecting a substantial number of people. This is considered a potentiall significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would this impact to a level. Construction associated with implementation of the Specific Plan compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust; howeve equipment would be operating at various locations throughout the would not take place all at once, and because any operations nea impacts associated with odors during construction are not consid lists of the most common sources of odor complaints. Typical sou facilities such as sewage treatment plants, landfills, compostin recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refiner shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, The proposed project would accommodate the construction of comme land uses that do not typically result in a source of nuisance o the Specific Plan would also accommodate some new industrial lan to produce objectionable odors during industrial processes and m BAAQMD do not recommend separation distances for sources of odor new industrial uses within one mile of sensitive uses would have to objectionable odors. With implementation of the Specific Plan, new industrial uses wo Railroad Avenue and west of Airport Boulevard. This entire area sensitive receptors in residential and commercial areas. Not all odors. However, it is currently unknown what new industrial proc Specific Plan. Industrial and manufacturing land uses that would permitting from the BAAQMD. However, permitting would generally health risks and may not eliminate odors. Therefore, impacts rel City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-27 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality potentially significant. However, implementation of mitigation m impact to a level. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new industr BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines or ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook source of odors, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation minimize odors. Best management practices vary by industrial typ be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible. Best man BAAQMD in the CEQA Guidelines shall be implemented as applicable following: Vapor Recovery Systems Injection of masking odorants into process streams Thermal oxidation Carbon absorption Scrubbers Catalytic oxidation 4.2.4Cumulative Impacts The geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis for air quali Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementa quality plan? Cumulative projects located in the Basin would have the potentia quality plans if, in combination, they would conflict with or ob Plan. Cumulative projects located in the Bay Area Basin would ge Plan Control Measures because projects would be required to demo Air Plan as part of the project review process. However, cumulat potential to result in an increase in criteria pollutant emissio agency thresholds, which the BAAQMD considers to be a conflict w potentially significant cumulative impact could occur. As discus4.2-1, the proposed project has the potential to hinder implementation of the Clean significant operational emissions even with implementation of mi the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable with air quality plans. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-28 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or existing or projected air quality violation? Threshold Would the project result in a cumulatively considerabl pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emiss quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Cumulative impacts related to criteria pollutants are addressed 4.2-3. As discussed in this section, the Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM, and PM. Therefore, there is an existing 102.5 significant cumulative impact. Even with implementation of mitig2, the construction and operation of the proposed project has the p for criteria pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would r contribution to a potentially significant cumulative impact asso Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substa Carbon Monoxide A cumulative impact related to CO hotspots would occur if the CO cumulative project development in the region would combine to cr (Fehr & Peers 2014) prepared for the proposed project analyzed p build-out of the Specific Plan planning horizon and existing cumulati Table 4.2-10 shows the maximum carbon monoxide concentration that would r congested intersections with implementation of the proposed proj hotspot would not occur at the most congested intersections that implementation of the proposed project. The bulk of traffic within the stu result from the anticipated land uses and has been accounted for additional traffic from regional growth may occur; however, CO c below significance thresholds, even at the most congested inters cumulative impact associated with CO hotspots would not occur. Toxic Air Contaminants Cumulative projects located in the Bay Area would have the poten impact associated with sensitive receptors if, in combination, t substantial concentration of TACs that would significantly incre be localized and not cumulative in nature because impacts relate be limited to the proximity of the source. However, implementati the potential to generate diesel particulate matter from truck t close proximity of the individual project. Cumulative projects w pollutant concentrations would be required to comply with the fe Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) program as well as ARB progra. Similar to the proposed project, cumulative projects located in for reducing diesel emissions. Stationary sources would be requi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.2-29 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.2 Air Quality BAAQMD and comply with emission thresholds for TACs. Therefore, combination with other cumulative projects in the region would r impact associated with sensitive receptors. Threshold Would the project create objectionable odors affecting people? Odor impacts are localized in nature and cumulative projects wou cumulative odor impact because odors are limited to the area imm to what is required for the proposed project in MM4.2-6, cumulat compared to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and implement odor reducing r applicable. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with in a less than significant cumulative impact associated with obj 4.2.5References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May. . 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Final Clean Air Plan. Volume II, September 15. . 2010b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May. . 2006. Climate, Physiography, and Air Pollution PotentialBay Area and Its Subregions. http://hank.baaqmd.gov/dst/papers/bay_area_climate.pdf (accessed February 9, 2014). . 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects a, December. California Air Resources Board (California ARB). 2012. iADAM: Ai . 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspectiv, April. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2012. Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. Caltrain. 2013. Peninsular Corridor Electrification Project. http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Mode lectrificationProject.html (accessed December 12, 2013). Fehr & Peers. 2014. South San Francisco Station Area Land Use Plan: EIR Transportati, October. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.2-30 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources 4.3CULTURAL RESOURCES This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff implementation of the proposed project. One comment letter addre in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) circulated for th Data used for the preparation of this section were taken from th Plan Open Space and Conservation Element (South San Francisco 19 Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided 4.3.1Environmental Setting Cultural resources are frequently defined in terms of tangible m include districts, sites, structures, artifacts, and other evide culture or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or historical, archaeological, architectural, or archival in nature The study area has been highly disturbed by urban development, i 1926 and the expansion of the Downtown area originating from Gra a wide variety of land uses, including commercial, residential, transportation uses, as well as a small number of vacant parcels portion of the Old Rancho Buri Buri, which was provisionally gra Jose Antonio Sanchez and grew due to strong industrial presence distribution point for the entire peninsula by the 1930s. The Ci incorporated on September 19, 1908, with 1,989 residents and fou As illustrated in Figure 3-1 (Project Location and Regional Vici area is generally bounded by the Sign Hill and Downtown Neighborhood Neighborhood to the north, business and technology park land use Neighborhood to the south. The Colma Creek Canal is located in t The 1986 Historic Resources Inventory recommended designation of Francisco Historical Commercial District. The proposed district Airport Boulevard to Maple Street, just below City Hall and also thth one block from Grand Avenue. The district is comprised of late 1 and early mid-20 century one-, two-, and three-story commercial buildings, with a pattern of la at street corners. Several structures have residential apartment of the Historical District would be an important economic develo and support for efforts to revitalize the commercial area. Prehistoric Setting The first survey of archaeological sites in the San Francisco Ba University of California at Berkeley between 1906 and 1908, docu mounds typified Bay Area archaeology and reflected its economic City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources resources. Cultural materials discovered at the University Villa County indicate that the San Francisco Peninsula Region was inha 2500 B.C. Excavation and analysis of -Costanoan or Early Bay culture once existed (Dyett & Bhatia 2011). Historical Setting Native American Period The open exposure, easy slope, availability of fresh water, and up and down the Peninsula made the current location of South San area for the Ohlone Indians prior to the European invasion. Seve of the Urebure tribelet when the Spanish arrived, including occu Bhatia 2011). Spanish Period The first Europeans to reach the San Francisco area were Spanish Bautista de Anza in 1776 resulted in the establishment of Missio Delores). A few months later, Mission Santa Clara de Asís was fo Real (which is just west of the study area) became a heavily tra their outposts (Dyett & Bhatia 2011). Mexican Period During the Mexican rule of California (1822 through 1848), large individuals, usual Early American Period The present City of South San Francisco was the general location 1853. Baden came into being when cattleman Charles Lux bought 1,500 ac built a large house near the creek and study area. Two years later, he cattle company, which supplied San Francisco stockyards for the driven up El Camino to Baden and then into San Francisco. The first local railroad ran through Baden when it began regular After Lux died in 1888, meatpacking titans Swift and Armour join acres more to begin the City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources City of South San Francisco The meat industry played an important role in South the growth and organization of the City. The Gustavus Swift meat other Midwestern meat packing companies to join in building a co plants on Point San Bruno, which laid the foundation for the dev In 1890, the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company pu site of the Rancho Buri Buri for development of the town. The arrange uses intentionally took advantage of stable ground and Bay acces prevailing winds from San Bruno Gap that blew offensive odors aw Bay. The town continued to grow with the construction of the Sou 19041907, which connected San Francisco and San Jose and expanded op transportation offered by the SPRR, which resulted in a lack of ts included Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire infrastructure. The City was incorporated on September 19, 1908,s industrial future and provided the services needed to attract re the industrial areas, and almost reached El Camino Real by incor north and marshlands to the south, city growth was limited to ex The east-west orientation was further reinforced by a directional c blocks. After i the opening of City Hall in 1920 and the development of Orange M The City continued to grow through the century as industrial exp the steel industry continued to locate in South San Francisco in evolve to conform to the topography and pre-existing roadways bu marshlands. Industrial growth during and after the Second World within the City, where fill and drainage projects opened many ar century, few pockets of undeveloped land remained as infill deve Freeway and El Camino Real. Other major developments included In up the Westborough area for development, and bay filling projects at the ai Point (South San Francisco 1999). Recorded Resources within South San Francisco California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Recor A records search was performed by an Atkins archaeologist at Nor located at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (Atkins 2014). previous cultural resources surveys and documented resources for within 0.50-mile radius. The search also included a review of hi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources various current inventories, including the National Register of Register of Historic Resources (CHCR), California Historical Lan Interest (CPHI), and the California State Historic Resources Inv The results of the record search indicated that twenty-five prev the Specific Plan study area; seven cultural resources (four dat prehistoric era) have been recorded within the study area (as sh4.3-1), and another twelve cultural resources have been identified within 0.50 mile of the study that only 50 percent of the study area has been surveyed for the presence many of these studies are dated ten years or older. The seven previou within the study area include three prehistoric deposits, includ buildings, and historic infrastructure elements, such as rail li Table 4.3-1 Known Cultural Resources within Study Area Site Number Resource Description 41-000045 Possible Shell Mound 41-000050 Prehistoric site of unknown characteristics 41-000406 Spruce School 41-000497 C-San Francisco South- 41-002147 Historic era refuse scatter (possibly destroyed) 41-002207 Prehistoric shell midden deposits located under pavement 41-002318 Historic transmission line tower circa 1956 Historic Resources The Historic Preservation Commission was appointed by the City C these resources from needless neglect, exterior alteration that value, or demolition. These goals are accomplished by designatin have a special status and recognition in the community as these of the past and present spirit of the City. In 2011, Ordinance 1 amending the Historic Preservation Commission ordinance to transfer the Historic Preservation Commission to the Planning Commission. Pre twenty-one structures as historic resources, including City Hall Building, and the Sign Hill Letters. Eight of these twenty-one h study area. Twelve historic resources were identified within the Specific Pl resources, which include the Spruce School, the C-San Francisco originally constructed in the late 1800s, a historic era refuse Resources identified eight additional historical resources, whic South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources Building, and the Metropolitan Hotel. However, due to the lack o and the strong industrial history of South San Francisco, the st historic structures and other infrastructure that could prove to California Register of Historic Resources. Archaeological Resources Three archaeological resources sites have been identified within shell mound, a prehistoric site of unknown characteristics, and center of industry, combined with the lack of complete surveying holds the potential to have historic and prehistoric archaeologi Paleontological Setting Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fos that have produced fossil material. Fossils are the remains or t Fossils are important scientific and educational resources becau presence and evolutionary history of particular groups of now ex environments in which these organisms lived, determining the rel occur and of the geologic events that resulted in the deposition and in their subsequent deformation. The City of South San Francisco is located on the South San Fran the Whiskey Hill Formation (USGS n.d.). This formation has the p (California PUC 2003). The University of California Museum of Pa contains more than 300 localities where fossils have been found locality is located within the City of South San Francisco. The Equus, which includes horses, donkeys, and zebras. The genus Equ species known only from fossils. The UCMP does not provide the e fossil was found in South San Francisco, but the lithology of th located in areas near the Bay and in the San Bruno Mountains. In the study area, it is unlikely that the locality of the fossil i 4.3.2Regulatory Framework Federal, state, and local governments have developed laws and re cultural resources that may be affected by actions that they und Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and CEQA are the basic federal a preservation of historic and archaeological resources of nationa City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources Federal The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Federal regulations for cultural resources are primarily governe106, which applies to actions taken by federal agencies. The goal of the Section 106 review pr protection to sites that are determined eligible for listing on the NR NRHP eligibility are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CF60. NHPA Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their under affords the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a found in 36 CFR Part 800. The NRHP criteria (contained in 36 CFR when complying with NHPA Section 106. Those criteria state that eli sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of l workmanship, feeling, and association, and any of the following: (a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contrib history (b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our (c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant di components may lack individual distinction (d) Have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and e measured by the degree to which the resource retains its histori character, the degree to which the original fabric has been reta property. Three of the four criteria are meant to apply to histo sometimes associated with archaeological and paleontological materials. Archaeological site evaluation assesses the potential of each si NRHP eligibility based upon visual surface and subsurface eviden information gathered during the literature and record familiarity with the historic or prehistoric context associated The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Title 42 United State American religious practices, ethnic heritage sites, and land uses. State The California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources C Sections 5020 et seq.) Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources ction 21083.2 requires agencies to ion 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). The term embraces any resource listed in or dete to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR includes resour eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some California Sta Interest. Properties of local significance that have been designated under landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in be eligible for l unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC Sect Regulations Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in a substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indic listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potent In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentiall or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed pro (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)). In general, an historical resource, under this approach, is defined as any object, building, structure, site, that: (a) Is historically or archeologically significant, or is signific scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, politic (b) Meets any of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribu 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, reg or represents the work of an important creative individual, or p 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important i (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)) Section 15064.5(c)(1)). In addition, PRC Section 5024 requires c Preservation when a project may impact historical resources located For historic structures, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3), indicates that a project that follows the Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Histor impacts to a level of less than significant. Potential eligibili City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources significance. Integrity is determined through considering the se location, feeling, and association of the resource. means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can b adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probabi criteria: Contains information needed to answer important scientific resea demonstrable public interest in that information. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of example of its type. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized importan person. (PRC Section 21083.2(g)) Treatment options under Section 21083.2 include activities that preserve such resources in place undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under Section curation or study in place without excavation and curation (if the study Advice on procedures to identify cultural resources, evaluate th effects is given in several agency publications such as the seri Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The technical advice seri recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of oth entities, including but not limited to, museums, historical comm solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 705 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) specifies pr discovered. The code states: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the c discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commen3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remain section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provis investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, a treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the m the Public Resources Code. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to ass coroner determines that the remains are those of Native American Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. At that tim with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as timely identified b the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develoe Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Senate Bill 18 As of March 1, 2005, Senate Bill 18 (Government Code Sections 65352.3 and 65352.4) requires that, prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan proposed on or af county must consult with Native American tribes with respect to mitigation of impacts to, specified Native American places, feat jurisdiction. The City has begun tribal consultation as required tribes per the consultation list provided by the Native American Heri dated May 12, 2014, and began the 90-day comment period. No comm Local South San Francisco General Plan landmarks, historical resources, and archaeological resources wi the element is to identify the historic and cultural resources w resources. Guiding Policies Policy 7.5-G-1 Conserve historic, cultural, and archaeological resources for t educational, economic, and scientific contribution they make to Sout Policy 7.5-G-2 Encourage municipal and community awareness, appreciation, and Implementing Policies Policy 7.5-I-1 Explore the feasibility of establishing a Downtown South San Fr Historical Commercial District, as designated in Figure 7-3, to pro revitalization and redevelopment of the area. [The 1986 Historic Resources Inventory recommended designation o Downtown South San Francisco Historical Commercial District. As above in the Environmental Setting section, the Historical Comme would be an important economic development initiative in generat support for efforts to revitalize the commercial area.] City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources Policy 7.5-I-2 Institute Downtown urban design guidelines, and require a desig developments in the proposed Downtown South San Francisco Histor Commercial District to ensure that the heights, massing, and des Policy 7.5-I-3 Explore mechanisms to incorporate South S historic and cultural preservation. [An inventory of industrial buildings in the city would identify designation, these buildings are at risk of being demolished as commercial uses expand. The adaptive reuse of these buildings wo s industrial history must be balanced with the economic considerations of industrial operations.] Policy 7.5-I-4 Ensure the protection of known archaeological resources in the records review for any development proposed areas of known resou undergoing development: Terrabay and the El Camino Real corridor 101 area, which is a likely location for new development, has th contain additional resources due to the extensive marshlands tha landfill activities. Adequate policies and measures for protecti unknown archaeological resources that can supplement CEQA requir need to be incorporated into future plans and development activi Policy 7.5-I-5 In accordance with State law, require the preparation of a reso and monitoring program by a qualified archaeologist in the event archaeological resources are uncovered. [CEQA requires the evaluation of any archaeological resource on development project. State law also protects these resources. Ci the identification, mitigation, and monitoring of project impact resources will ensure the Consistency Analysis The records search conducted at NWIC indicated that historical a within the Specific Plan study area as well as within a 0.50-mil the region and the City, the study area is considered to be sens archaeological resources. Mitigation measures included in this s archaeological or paleontological materials are encountered duri these materials would be identified, assessed as to significance taken. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with t South San Francisco General Plan. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources 4.3.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method The following analysis considers the presence and absence of kno area. It also considers the potential for significant cultural r boundaries, against the potential impacts on such resources from Specific Plan. The impacts on cultural resources from implementa qualitatively based on the general information about the study a General Plan (1999), and the South San Francisco Historic Preser1986). Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have cultural resources if it would: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a histor CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archa CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of f Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. Impact 4.3-1 Implementation of the proposed project could cause change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This is considered a potentially sig impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact, but not a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this would be a impact. Presently, there are twelve historical sites located within the twelve sites within 0.5 mile of the study area boundaries. As di Resources Inventory recommended designation of the Downtown Sout Commercial District. The proposed district extends along Grand A Maple Street, just below City Hall and also includes Linden Aven thth Grand Avenue. The district is comprised of late 19 and early mid-20 century one-, two-, and three- story commercial buildings, with a pattern of large or architect corners. However, the Downtown South San Francisco Historical Co formally designated as a historical district at this time. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources Implementation of the Specific Plan would not change any of the resources and it is unlikely that any future development under t sites where designated historic resources are presently located. the historic core for the City and that it includes buildings of emphasizes retaining the unique historic character of this histo area shall respect this character. The Land Use and Urban Design7, which calls for focusing public investments in the historic core of Airport to Spruce, and on adjoining streetsthe Pedestrian Zoneto create an attractive pedestrian environment to support businesses Downtown. In addition, the Spe retention of historically significant buildings wherever possibl protect the existing historical character of the Downtown area. Plan would require future development projects to be aesthetical of the historic district and would visually support the existing for potential formal designation as a Historic District. However; the Specific Plan would not preclude the possibility th resources could be adversely affected by future development of t relocation, or alteration of historic-period buildings or struct the Specific Plan, therefore, are considered potentially signifi Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1 would require a qualified professional to conduct site- specific historical resource evaluation for future developments or otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years historic setting. While the historic resource evaluation would include history of the community, the evaluation need only evaluate the building being modified or demolished. Nonetheless, development demolition or removal of significant historical resources, which While implementation of site-specific mitigation measures, such documentation of significant historical resources, would reduce would remain significant due to the potential for future physica. Consequently, impacts on historical resources would be . Prior to development activities that would demolish or otherwis structures 45 years old or older, the project applicant shall retain a cultura to determine if the project would cause a substantial adverse ch resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The inve determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and the appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an updat Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to determine resources would be adversely affected by the proposed development. T shall be documented in a technical report or memorandum that ide resources within the development area and includes recommendatio reducing impacts on historical resources. The technical report o the City of South San Francisco for approval. As determined nece South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for future dev shall reference or incorporate the findings and recommendations memorandum. The project applicant shall be responsible for imple reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the techn Threshold Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1506 Impact 4.3-2 Implementation of the proposed project could cause change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This is considered a potentiall significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a level. center of industry make the existence of prehistoric and histori San Francisco 1999). As stated above, the CHRIS records search identified three arch located within the study area. Although the study area has alrea from previous urban development and may contain artificial fill archaeological sites that contain intact, undisturbed cultural d previous disturbance. As such, significant previously unidentified archaeological resources could exist within the study area. The potential exists that construction ac within the Specific Plan study area may unearth undocumented arc result in a potentially significant impact. However, development be required through mitigation measure MM4.3-2 through MM4.3-4, preconstruction surveys of previously undisturbed soils; to reta cultural resources within the development area; require that ear archeological resource is discovered; and require that all const awareness training. Therefore, implementation of these mitigatio . Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, tre previously undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a determine if the project could result in a substantial adverse c archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The results of the cultural resources investigation shall be documented in a technical report or evaluates any archaeological resources within the development ar methods for avoiding impacts on archaeological resources or redu level. The technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for impleme impacts on archaeological resources identified in the technical the Specific Plan that would not encounter previously undisturbe required to retain an archaeologist shall demonstrate non-distur appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to an that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed measure MM4.3-3. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected histor Guidelines Section 15064.5, are discovered during any project-re (including projects that would not encounter undisturbed soils), al 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of South San Fran applicant shall retain a City-approved archaeologist to assess t any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-sign adequate by the archaeologist as approved by the City. Prior to start of construction, all construction personnel invo the supervision of such activities will undergo worker environme archaeological resources training components will be presented b consultant. The training will describe the types of archaeological re proposed study area and how to recognize such resources; the pro resources are found, including communication protocols; and the archaeological resources and the associated penalties for breaking these laws. Ad construction, City-approved archaeological and excavation contractors to provide comments and suggestions c discuss excavation and grading plans. Threshold Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a uni site or unique geologic feature? Impact 4.3-3 Implementation of the proposed project could directly or i a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic fea is considered a potentially significant impact. However, impleme mitigation would reduce this impact to a level. The City of South San Francisco is located on the South San Fran the Whiskey Hill Formation (USGS n.d.). This formation has the p (California PHC 2003). Unique geologic features are not site spe identified in a variety of geologic formations. The Specific Pla 101 subareas. Ground-disturbing construction activities from dev Specific Plan would have the potential to uncover and potentiall resources or an unknown unique geologic feature. This is conside However, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-5 and MM4.3-6, which require construction working training, preconstruction studies within areas containin halting of construction be should a paleontological deposit or u would reduce this impact to . Prior to any earth-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, tre undisturbed soils, the project applicant shall retain a professiona project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontolo feature. The results of the investigation shall be documented in that identifies the paleontological sensitivity of the developme and methods for avoiding or reducing impacts to a less-than-sign resources or unique geologic features. The technical report or mem City for approval. The project applicant shall be responsible for reducing impacts on paleontological resources or unique geologic South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources report or memorandum. Projects that would not encounter undistur be required to retain a paleontologist shall demonstrate non-dis appropriate construction plans or geotechnical studies prior to an that would include any earth disturbance (disturbed or undisturbed measure MM4.3-6. Should paleontological resources (i.e., fossil remains) or uniq particular site during project construction, construction shall City of South San Francisco shall be notified. The project applicant paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts t mitigated to a less-than-significant level through methods deter and as approved by the City. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulti San Francisco staff shall determine whether avoidance is necessa as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable reg assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessa measures (e.g., monitoring and/or data recovery) shall be instit Threshold Would the project disturb any human remains, including formal cemeteries? Impact 4.3-4 Implementation of the proposed project could distur including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. This is considerea potentially significant impact. However, compliance with standar regulations would reduce this impact to a level. prehistoric and historic archaeological resources likely (South resources could include human remains. According to the General formal cemeteries are located within the City boundaries, and no cemeteries are located within the study area. Although the poten interred outside of formal cemeteries within the study area is l given the level of past human activity it is possible that unkno the Specific Plan study area and that future development could e subsurface). In the event of the inadvertent discovery or recogn future, project-related ground disturbing activities, California requires that no further disturbances shall occur until the County Corone findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuan5097.98. PRC Section 5097.98 outlines the NAHC notification process and the required Coroner determines the human remains to be Native American. Compl regulation would protect unknown and previously unidentified hum unknown human remains would be ; and no mitigation would be required. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources 4.3.4Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative cultural r Francisco, as represented by full build- cumulative development would focus upon development of vacant pa of infill parcels within the City. Threshold Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. New development projects within the City would have the potentia through impacts from construction and operation guiding and implementing policies to protect and conserve histor the nature of all cultural resources being unique and non-renewa effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Fed resources in most instances, such as listing eligible historical always feasible to protect historical resources, particularly wh implementation of new development projects. For this reason, the development within the City are considered cumulatively signific As discussed above, there are twelve historical resources identifi Since comprehensive studies of the study area have not been cond historic resources would be identified on a project-by-project b Specific Plan would be required to comply with CEQA. Implementat1 would require qualified professionals to conduct an updated reco and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to dete resources would be adversely affected by the proposed developmen mitigation of significant impacts. However, because it is curren whether future development under the proposed Specific Plan woul historical resources within the study area cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable (i.e., the historical resources in South San Francisco). Therefore, this cu . Threshold Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1506 New development within the City has the potential to result in a archaeological resources caused by construction activities, such cultural resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Therefore, the cumulatiw development within the City are considered cumulatively significant for archaeological resou Based on the archaeological sensitivity and history of the study disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources deposits, or features. Adherence to existing federal, state, and implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-2 through MM4.3-4 for the proposed Specific Plan would ensure project impacts to archaeological resources are red Therefore, when considered in the context of regional present an cumulative impact would be . Threshold Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a uni site or unique geologic feature? Based on the geologic mapping and the paleontological sensitivit possibility that ground-disturbing activities during constructio paleontological sites or unique geologic features. For this reas development within the City are considered cumulatively signific and local regulations, as well as the implementation of mitigati composed for the proposed project would ensure that project impact reduced to less than significant. Therefore, when considered in reasonably foreseeable projects, the cumulative impact would be . Threshold Would the project disturb any human remains, including formal cemeteries? Impacts related to disturbing human remains are site specific an the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during constru buried human remains. Treatment of human remains is covered unde as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) and PRC Secti regulations would ensure that any impacts to human remains from the pr reduced to and, therefore, not cause cumulative impacts to human remains w the City of South San Francisco. 4.3.5References California Public Utilities Commission (California PUC). 2003. Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Line Project Final EIR, October. Dyett & Bhatia. 2011. El Camino Real/ Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, February. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1779 (accessed November 19, 2013). Lamphier-Gregory. 2011. Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project, March. http://ci-ssf- ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=456&meta_id=316 (accessed November 21, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Av General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, May. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.3-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.3 Cultural Resources United States Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. Paleontology in the. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfbay/paleo.html (Accessed on November 19, 2013) University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). n.d. UCM. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 20, 2013). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.3-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.4GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff implementation of the proposed project. No comment letters addressing greenhouse gas emissions were received in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) circulat Data for this section were taken from CalEEMod software, trip ge analysis (Fehr & Peers 2014), emissions factors from the Californi Action Plan (CAP) adopted by the City of South San Francisco in reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in S 4.4.1Environmental Setting Background 5 Global climate change refers to changes in the normal weather of the earth measured by alterations in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature relative t considerably by geographic location. Over time, the earths climate has undergone periodic ice ages and warming periods, as observed in fossil isotopes, ice core sample techniques. Recent climate change studies use the historical rec and the level of fluctuation that might be considered statistica Temperature records from the Industrial Age (ranging from the lacentury to the present) deviate from normal predictions in both rate and magnitude. Most unprecedented warming period during the next century and beyond, to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the i solid waste generation, and land use patterns of the twentieth a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), greenhouse gas activities have grown since pre-industrial times, increasing by 2007b). Increased greenhouse gas emissions are largely the result of i particularly the incineration of fossil fuels. The IPCC modeled several possible emissions trajectories to dete be needed worldwide to stabilize global temperatures and minimiz of the analytic methodology used, global average temperature and all scenarios (IPCC 2007b). In other words, there is evidence th climate change effects but cannot reverse them entirely. On the reduce the severity of impacts, resulting in lesser environmenta predicted that the range of global mean temperature change from emissions-reduction scenarios, could range from 1.1°C to 6.4°C. Normal weather patterns include statistically normal variations within 5 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gases atmospheric walls of a greenhouse. These gases, mainly water vapor, carbon d), methane (CH), nitrous 24 oxide (NO), ozone (O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), all act as effective global i 23 visible light and infrared radiation back to earth. Human activi driving internal combustion vehicles, have contributed to the el in rainfall patterns, smaller polar ice caps, a rise in sea leve wildlife, and humans. The relationships of water vapor and ozone as GHGs are poorly un water vapor acts as a GHG. The uncertainty is due to the fact th cover, which reflects sunlight away from Earth and can counterac tends to increase as the Earth warms, so it is not well understood whe contributing to or rather a result of climate change. Ozone tend radiation but is not understood well enough for evaluation. For by the IPCC, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP Resources Board (ARB) focus on carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, me following provides a brief description of each of these GHGs. Carbon Dioxide The natural production and absorption of carbon dioxide occurs t oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood product reactions, such as those required to manufacture cement. Globallemissions is 2 the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in pow facilities. A number of specialized industrial production proces metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products, leads emissions. 2 CO is removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is abso 2 biological carbon cycle. Natural sources of CO occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of 2 atmospheric CO are removed by oceans and growing plants and are emitted back i 2 through natural processes. When in balance, total CO emissions and removals from the entire carbon 2 cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the of oil, coal, and gas and deforestation, increased CO concentrations in the atmosphere by 35 percent as 2 of 2005. Methane Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natu is emitted during the 4 production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, from liv termites, and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid 60 percent of global CH emissions are related to human activities. Natural sources of C include 44 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6 wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, nonwetland soi CH emission levels from a particular source can vary significantly fro 4 another. These variances depend on many factors, such as climate characteristics, energy types and usage, and waste management pr moisture have a significant effect on the anaerobic digestion pr processes resulting in CH emissions from both human and natural sources. Also, the implem 4 technologies to capture and utilize CH from sources such as landfills, coal mines, and manure 4 management systems affects the emission levels from these source Nitrous Oxide Concentrations of nitrous oxide also began to rise at the beginn 314 parts per billion (ppb) by 1998. Microbial processes in soil and occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen, produce nitrous oxide. In add industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon prod emissions) also contribute to the atmospheric load of NO. 2 Chlorofluorocarbons Chlorofluorocarbons have no natural source, but were synthesized propellants, and cleaning solvents. Since their creation in 1928 atmosphere have been rising. Due to the discovery that they are global effort to halt their production was undertaken, and level static or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes m the atmosphere for over 100 years. Since they are also a GHG, al synthesized gases as carbontetrafluoride (CF) and sulfurhexafluoride (SF), they are of concern. Another 46 set of synthesized compounds called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) ar they are less stable in the atmosphere and therefore have a shor CF, SF and HFCs have been banned and are no longer available. Therefor 46 included further in this analysis. Global Warming Potential The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combi emissions and its global warming potential (GWP), and is express would be caused by the same mass of CO. Thus, GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of 2 pounds or tons of CO equivalents (COe), and are often expressed in metric tons (MT COe) or millions 222 of metric tons of CO equivalents (MMT COe). Table 4.4-1 (Global Warming Potentials for 22 Greenhouse Gases) shows the GWPs over a 100-year time horizon for the analysis (BAAQMD 2010). 6 molecules (USGS 1992). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.4-1 Global Warming Potentials for Greenhouse Gases Gas GWP CO1 2 CH21 4 NO310 2 SOURCE: BAAQMD, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Base Year 2007 (February 2010). Greenhouse Gas Inventory The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, especially fo of motor vehicles, has led to substantial increases in CO emissions (and thus substantial increases in 2 atmospheric concentrations). In 1994, atmospheric CO concentrations were found to have increased by 2 nearly 30 percent above pre-industrial (c. 1860) concentrations. Current s emissions of GHGs are estimated as follows: Statewide Inventory In 2004, California emitted approximately 483 MMT COe, or about 6 percent of the U.S. emissions. 2 This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California c California has one of the fourth lowest per-capita GHG emission of its energy-efficiency and renewable energy programs and commis GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would that has reduced Californias fuel use and GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to tha other states. In 2008, Californias GHG emissions were approximately 478 MMT COe, generally 2 attributed to the reduced travel and therefore transportation em The California Energy Commission found that transportation is the s -state and out-of-state) at 23 percent, and industrial sources at 20 percent. Agriculture and 8.3 (CEC 2007). Regional Inventory In February of 2010 the BAAQMD updated their regional emissions the GHG emissions for the Bay Area using 2007 as the base year ( emissions inventory, in 2007 the San Francisco Bay area emitted e. Direct emissions 2 within the BAAQMD jurisdiction were 88.7 MMT COe with remaining 7.1 MMT COe resulting from 22 indirect emissions from imported electricity. The greatest emissions source within the BAAQMD jurisdiction is transportation which represented 36.41 percent of total emission resulted in 36.4 percent of the total emissions. Energy production, resid equipment, and agriculture and farming comprise the rest of the emission so 15.9 percent, 7.1 percent, 3 percent, and 1.2 percent of total emissi South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions South San Francisco Inventory The City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP) on Februa inventory for the existing emissions within the City using a 200 According to the CAP, existing GHG emissions were 548,600 MT COe in 2005. 2 The greatest emissions source within the City is from energy use emissions. Transportation emissions were the second largest source r sources, off-road, solid waste, landfill, and water and wastewater emi emissions contributing 6 percent, 4, percent, 3 percent, 2 perce Study Area Inventory Currently, the area encompassed by the Specific Plan in South Sa units and 2,019,553 square feet (sf) of nonresidential land uses including energy and water consumption, wastewater and solid waste genera contribute to the generation of GHGs within the City. Existing s study area result in annual emissions of approximately 60,554 MTe. Table 4.4-2 (Existing Specific 2 Plan GHG Emissions) details these emissions by source. Table 4.4-2 Existing Specific Plan GHG Emissions Sources CO CH NO COe a 2422 Area 78.93 0.06 0.00 80.85 b Electricity 10467.34 0.4733 0.0979 10507.64 Natural Gas 7,996.42 0.15 0.15 8,045.09 Transportation 35,440.11 1.73 0.00 35,476.53 Waste 2,348.26 138.78 0.00 5,262.61 Water 866.82 11.02 0.27 1,180.96 Total 60,553.68 SOURCE: Atkins (2014) (taken from the CalEEMod Model). a. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be multiplied 422 by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for C and NO).The 42 conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. b. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emiss area sources include hearths, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Potential Effects of Climate Change Climate change could have a number of adverse effects. Although consequences, in most cases they would not disproportionately af words, many of the effects of climate change are not site-specif contribute to the changes in the global climate, which would in environmental effects. A number of general effects are discussed City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sea Level Rise and Flooding The California Climate Change Center (CCCC) predicts that sea le 10.9 to 71.6 centimeters (cm) (0.36 to 2.3 feet) above existing climate change (CCCC 2006).Measurements taken in the City of Alameda sea level rise is about 0.29 foot per century. Therefore, projec would increase the existing rate of sea level rise by 4 to 35 inc of the study area would be impacted by sea level rise of 16 inches end of the century (SFBCDC 2008). Figure 4.4-1 (Sea Level Rise) shows the areas of potential impact. Water Supply California Health and Safety Code Section threat to the economic well- San Francisco, depends on surface water supplies originating in reduction is a concern. climate would be a reduced snow pack and a shift in stream-flow winter precipitation in the mountains would likely fall as rain reducing the overall snowpack. Further, as temperatures rise, sn year. As a result, peak runoff would likely come a month or so e that the state may not have sufficient surface storage to captur construction of additional water storage projects, a portion of oc Water Quality Climate change could have adverse effects on water quality, whic uses (habitat, water supply, etc.) of surface water bodies and g discussed above could result in increased sedimentation, higher dissolved oxygen levels, increased temperatures, and an increase reaching surface water bodies. Sea level rise, discussed above, water into freshwater bodies. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-6 PROJECT LOCATION LEGEND PLAN AREA BOUNDARYAREA POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO AN APPROXIMATE 16-INCH SEA LEVEL RISE CITY BOUNDARY AREA POTENTIALLY EXPOSED TO AN APPROXIMATE 55-INCH SEA LEVEL RISE SCALE IN MILES Source: Figure 4.4-1 Sea Level Rise Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Ecosystems and Biodiversity Climate change is expected to have effects on diverse types of e habitat. As temperatures and precipitation change, seasonal shif affect the distribution of associated flora and fauna species. A fragmentation could occur, with acute impacts on the distributio states (IPCC 2007 percent to 30 percent of species assessed may be at risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century if global mean temper 7 relative to pre- could also make ecosystems vulnerable to invasive species encroachment. Wildfires, which are an important ecosystems, may become more severe and more frequent, making it repeatedly re-germinate. In general terms, climate change is exp ecosystems, with potentially catastrophic effects on biodiversit Human Health Impacts Climate change may increase the risk of vector-borne infectious tropical areas and spread by insectsmalaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis (USEPA 2008).While these health impacts would largely affect tropical areas health effects would also be felt in California. Warming of the smog and particulate pollution, which could adversely affect ind problems, such as asthma. Extreme heat events would also be expe and could adversely affect the elderly, children, and the homele seasonal temperature variations expected as a result of climate agricultural operations, making the food supply more vulnerable. 4.4.2Regulatory Framework Global climate change is addressed through the efforts of variou government agencies as well as national and international scient programs. These agencies work jointly and individually to unders greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change through le making, education, and a variety of programs. The significant ag focused on global climate change are discussed below. Federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA is responsible for implementing federal policy to addr government administers a wide array of public-private partnershi by the United States. These programs focus on energy efficiency, non-CO gases, agricultural practices, and implementation of technologie 2 A biome is a major ecological community classified by the predom 7 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Federal Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule On September 22, 2009, USEPA released its final Greenhouse Gas R The Reporting Rule is a response to the fiscal year (FY) 2008 Co (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110161), which required USEPA to develop mandatory reporting of greenhouse ga The Reporting Rule would apply to most entities that emit 25,000 MT COe or more per year. Starting in 2010, facility 2 owners were required to submit an annual GHG emissions report with d GHG emissions. The Reporting Rule also mandates recordkeeping an order for the USEPA to verify annual GHG emissions reports. In N published a final rule document (78 FR 71904) that amends the Gr implementing some technical corrections and clarifying revisions Endangerment and Cause and Contribute Findings On December 7, 2009, USEPA signed the Endangerment and Cause or under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 202(a). Under the Endangerment current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGsCO, CH, NO, perfluorinated 242 carbons (PFCs), SF, and HFCsin the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of curr 6 and future generations. Under the Cause or Contribute Finding, U emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicle engine that threatens public health and welfare. These findings did not on specific industries or other entities. However, this action ws CAA Title V permitting regulations known as the Tailoring Rule under the for new, large point source emitters and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for Clean Air Act Permitting (Tailoring Rule) for GHG Emissions On January 2, 2011, the USEPA required states to implement new p to reduce GHG emissions from new large emission sources such as GHG standards fall under CAA Title V; while the USEPA oversees compli individual states are in control of issuing CAA Title V air permits. All programs to comply with the GHG standards of the CAA except for Arizona states, the USEPA will take over the issuing of air permits unti compliance. The final rule, called the Tailoring Rule, established a phased schedule that focuses the GHG permitting programs on the largest sources with the most CAA step. Then, in step two, the rule expands to cover large sources previously covered by the CAA for other pollutants. The rule alss commitment to future rulemaking that will include subsequent steps for GHG Tailoring Rule requires all new sources or modifications of existing sources su Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for another regula provide Best Available Contract Technology (BACT) if the source 75,000 MT COe /year. In addition new sources that are not regulated under th 2 pollutants, but have a PTE of at least 100,000 MT COe/year must provide BACT for GHG emissions. 2 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Updated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE Standard) The current Federal CAFE standards (for model years 2011 to 2016 requirements promulgated by the federal government and the state standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emiss 25 percent by 2016 (resulting in fleet average of 35.5 miles per g adopt these new standards was completed in 2010. California agre compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compli federal government issued new standards in summer 2012 for model require a fleet average of 54.5 mpg in 2025. State California Air Resources Board California ARB, a part of the California EPA, is responsible for both federal and state air pollution control programs within Cal conducts research, sets state ambient air quality standards, com suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local prog emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consu paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commer specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. California development of Californias State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely wi government and the local air districts. Executive Order S-3-05 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2 S-3-05, the following GHG emission reduction targets: By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels By 2050, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent bel Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs in California. California ARB has de levels of GHG emissions in 1990 to be 427 MMT COe. California ARB has adopted the Climate 2 Change Scoping Plan, which outlines the states strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG limit set by AB 32. This Scoping Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions design emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce depende save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. Part of Californias strategy for achieving GHG reductions under AB 32 are the early action greenhouse gas reduction measures, which include the following: a low carbo City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from nonprofessional servicing of motor vehicle air conditioning systems capture (California ARB 2007). Assembly Bill 1493Pavley Rules Known as Pavley I, 1493 standards were the nations first GHG standards for automobiles. AB 1493 requires the California ARB to adopt vehicle standards tha new light-duty autos to the maximum extent feasible beginning in Pavley standards (referred to previously as Pavley II now referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars measure) has been proposed for vehicle model years 2017 to 2025. expected to increase average fuel economy to roughly 43 mpg by 2 and reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector in Californi June 2009, USEPA granted Californias waiver request enabling the state to enforce its GHG emissions standards for new motor vehicles beginning with the current model ARB have worked together on a joint rulemaking to establish GHG 20172025 passenger vehicles. As noted above, the federal government summer 2012 resulting in adoption of new standards that would le 2025. Senate Bill (SB) 1078, SB107, and SB2Renewable Portfolio Standard SB 1078 and SB 107, Californias Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), obligates investor-owned u (IOUs), energy service providers (ESPs), and Community Choice Ag additional 1 percent of retail sales per year from eligible rene later than 2010. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and (CEC) are jointly responsible for implementing the program. SB 2 (2011) set forth a longer-range target of procuring 33 percent of retail sales by 2020. Executive Order S-01-07Low Carbon Fuel Standard Executive Order S-01-07 mandates (1) that a statewide goal be established to reduce t of Californias transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and (2) th fuels be established in California. The executive order initiated a California ARB. California ARB developed the LCFS regulation pursuant to the autAB 32 and adopted it in 2009. In late 2011, a federal judge issued a p of the LCFS, ruling that the LCFS violates the interstate commer 2012). The injunction was lifted in April 2012 so that Californi pending s appeal of the federal district court ruling. Senate Bill 375 SB 375, which establishes mechanisms for the development of region vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, was adopted by the State on Se 2010, California ARB adopted the vehicular greenhouse gas emissi developed in consultation with the metropolitan planning organiz to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reductionSB 375 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions recognizes the importance of achieving significant greenhouse ga counties to change land use patterns and improve transportation SB 375 process, MPOs, such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will work with local jurisdictions in the development of sustainable communities stra development patterns and the transportation network in a way tha while meeting housing needs and other regional planning objectivABAGs reduction target for per capita vehicular emissions is 7 percent by 2020 and 15 percent b2010). Senate Bill 97 SB 97, enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly establis effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analy Office of Administrative Law codified into law CEQA amendments t with respect to the analysis and mitigation of the potential eff Guidelines Section 15183.5. To streamline analysis, CEQA provide with a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under special circ Executive Order S-13-08 Executive Order S-13-08, the Climate Adaptation and Sea Level Rise Planning Directiv direction for how the state should plan for future climate impac Adaptation Strategy (CAS) report which summarizes the best known in the state to assess vulnerability and outlines possible solut across state agencies to promote resiliency. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 CCR Title 24, Part 6 (Californias Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response Californias energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to efficiency requirements. Although it was not originally intended production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy e Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG most recent version, which went into effect in January 1, 2010. July 1, 2014. CCR Title 24, Part 11 (Californias Green Building Standard Code) (CALGreen) was adopted in 2010 an went into effect January 1, 2011. CALGreen is the first statewid significantly raises the minimum environmental standards for con The mandatory provisions in CALGreen will reduce the use of VOC- conservation, and require construction waste recycling. As with go into effect as of July 1, 2014. Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade Program On October 20, 2011, California ARB adopted the final cap-and-tr California cap-and-trade program created a market-based system w City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions affected sectors. The program is currently proposed to regulate s emissions and will stagger compliance requirements according to the generation and large industrial sources (2012) and (2) fuel combusti Cap and Trade regulation took effect on January 1, 2012, and enfor 2013. Regional Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive a San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. To that end, the BAAQMD, a reg Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transporta governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state g develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requiremes emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educationa In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to addre California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated three times,1994, 1997, and 2010, with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stat and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by pr Plans, the Bay Area Ozone Strategy, and Clean Air Plans that comand the California Clean Air Act, accommodate growth, reduce the pol federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimize th measures have on the local economy. The Ozone Strategies are pre and the Clean Air Plans are prepared for the state ozone standar Strategy was adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors in January Bay Area will fulfill CCAA planning requirements for the State o mitigation requirements through the proposed control strategy. T source control measures to be implemented through Air District r measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other measures to be implemented through transportation programs in co Transportation Commission, local governments, transit agencies a Air Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors on September 15, the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to (1) reduce emissio concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2) safeguard public health by reducing that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the commun by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Plan addresses ozone and its precursors, PM2.5, air toxics, and GHG The BAAQMDNew Source Review Rule, Regulation 2, Rule 2, and the Districts Air Toxics Risk Management Policy require that new or modified stationary source South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions operated undergo permit review for Best Available Control Techno Control Technology for Toxics (TBACT) when certain thresholds ar are also regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards an BAAQMD rules, BACT is defined as the most stringent emissions co pollutant source, has been achieved in practice, identified in a found by the BAAQMD to be technologically achievable and cost-ef To minimize the emissions of TACs, the BAAQMD requires laborator that the health risk resulting from emissions of TACs is less th or follow Responsible Laboratory Management Practices (RLMPs). Beca research, estimating TAC emissions and demonstrating low risk is fairly straightforward. Moreover, the RLMPs are based on risk an University and the University of California, San Francisco. Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communitie (Plan Bay Area) ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions (MTC) adopt a long-range transportation and land use strategy through 2040 f how the Bay Area will achieve the requirements of Senate Bill 37 passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks by 7 percent below the 15 percent below 2005 per-capita emissions by 2035. Local City of South San Francisco General Plan The City of South San Francisco is responsible for the assessmen resulting from its land use decisions. The City of South San Fra implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights, an General Plan Chapters 2.6, 3.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.3, 7.3, and 8.3 contribute to reducing GHG emissions within the City. These are outlined as follows Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all fe quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants f where feasible. Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote us automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, Guidelines. Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes fireplaces and wood stoves. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an acti program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining exis Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Franciscs prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increase from BART extension to the City and adjacent locations. Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development support transit, in locations where they would provide increased currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such deve and vitality. Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new deve alternative transportation modes. As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and community orientation of new development. Encourage development of Downtown as a pedestrian-friendly mixed retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal services offices, civic uses, and a variety of residential types and dens Enhance linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and incre the surrounding neighborhoods. Work with the Peninsula Joint Corridors Board and other agencies transportation hub on the southeast side of the Grand Avenue/ Ai Encourage the inclusion of a child care facility near the multi- Improve pedestrian connections between the new multi-modal trans Downtown through techniques such as sidewalk bulbing, lighting i Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, th improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various tr South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles tr Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that p transportation and recreation. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between a neighborhoods, and to transit centers. In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttl In partnership with the local business community, develop a tran plan with identified trip-reduction goals, while continuing to m business environment. Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an impl adopted, the Bicycle Master Plan shall be the guiding policy doc South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions that are within the scope of the adopted Bicycle Master Plan. (A Adopted February 9, 2011) Make bikeway improvements a funding priority. Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all exist residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional us Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between thSouth San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Stationand the surroundings. Adopt a TDM program ordinance. Favor TDM programs that limit vehicle use over those that extend Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further use by City employees. Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirement to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program. Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever new parking stalls required. Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit. Develop a Downtown multi-modal transit center southeast of the G Boulevard intersection, with a relocated Caltrain Station as its Explore the feasibility a shuttle system between the Downtown/mu San Francisco and San Bruno stations. Explore mechanisms to prov riders. Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and prop Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and ac conserving devices and practices in both new construction and ma existing buildings. Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, i Waste Management Act of 1989. Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycli Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan The City Council adopted a CAP and a Mitigated Negative Declarat document demonstrates how the City will reduce GHG emissions in co of AB 32. The CAP includes a baseline emissions inventory for 20 2020 and 2035; reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emissions by City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions applicable legislation and City specific actions; monitoring and document. Based on the CAP, in 2005, per-service population emise, which 2 would be reduced to 3.58 MT COe by 2020 and 3.08 MT COe by 2035 to reach the regulatory 22 requirements. As a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the City ca determining project CEQA compliance, streamlining Environmental Consistency Analysis General Plan Chapters 2.6, 3.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.3, 7.3, and 8.3 contribute to reducing GHG emissions within the City. As identified in Impa4.4-1 and Impact 4.4-2, the implementation of the Specific Plan would further the goals of both t initiatives and the General Plan and CAP to reduce GHG emissions from the C proposed project would further the goals and policies of the Cit CAP. 4.4.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method The impact analysis for the Specific Plan is based on a GHG emis Environmental Analysis, below. GHG emissions associated with the proposed plan were estimated using the CalEEMod software, trip g analysis (Fehr & Peers 2014), emissions factors from the Califor sources. The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis a operation activities. Refer to Appendix C for model output and d Construction Construction activities can alter the carbon cycle in many diffe typically utilizes fossil fuels, which generate GHGs such as car Methane may also be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipmen new buildings can sequester carbon; however, demolition of struc the carbon stored in waste building materials into the atmospher landfills. Since the exact nature of the origin or make-up of th construction-related emissions are typically based on the operat construction. Operation The following operational activities are typically associated wi industrial and residential land uses that will contribute to the Vehicular trips Vehicle trips generated by growth within the Specific Plan would GHG emissions through combustion of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions were determined based on the annual vehicle miles trave traffic analysis (Fehr & Peers 2014) with trip rates and average model averaged to match as close as possible the VMT in the traf South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions On-site use of natural gas and other fuels Natural gas would be used by development under the Specific Plan for heating of residential, commercial, and in industrial operations, resulting in a direct release of GHGs. Th would also result in on-site GHG emissions. Estimated emissions natural gas and other fuels from the operation of the uses propo on the number of dwelling units, hotel rooms and square footage 8 as estimated by the CalEEMod model. GHG emissions associated wit energy use vary based on the size of structures, the type and extent of incorporated into structural designs, and the type and size of e a plan-level document and individual development/redevelopment project individual project building envelope details are not available f Therefore, the analysis assumes that all development will comply building standards (such as Title 24, etc.). Electricity use Electricity is generated by a combination of methods, which incl combustion of fossil fuels. By using electricity, development in contribute to the indirect emissions associated with electricity Water use and wastewater generation- intensive, with electricity used to pump and treat water. Typica Plan would contribute to indirect emissions by consuming water a Solid waste Disposal of organic waste in landfills can lead to the generatio potent greenhouse gas. By generating solid waste, proposed devel emission of fugitive methane from landfills, as well as CO, CH and NO from the operation of 242 trash collection vehicles. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have greenhouse gas emissions if it would: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly impact on the environment Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted emissions of greenhouse gases The building envelope includes all the components of a building 8 outdoors. This includes exterior walls, foundations, roof, windo City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-19 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction-Related Thresholds The BAAQMD has not adopted a threshold with respect to construct level or individual development projects. However, the BAAQMD re quantify construction emissions and make a significance determin meeting the AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Lead Agencies are encoura Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction. include, but are not limited to: Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) constructi 15 percent of the fleet Using local building materials of at least 10 percent Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition mat For the purposes of this analysis, construction emissions are not c development incorporates the BAAQMD recommended BMPs and is cons policies and CAP policies regarding construction. Because construction results in temporary emissions and GHG emis cumulative operation emissions repeated over decades of activiti insignificant with respect to the ability to impact climate chan Practices to reduce GHG emissions, the project would not contrad regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Operational Thresholds The build-out of long-range plans such as area plans have the po impacts by the continued and increased generation of GHGs from n the City, including the vehicle emissions associated with these (BAAQMD 2009), the impact would not be classified cumulatively considerable if it would meet at least one of the following thresholds: Be consistent with the policies of a qualified Climate Action Pl Produce emissions of no more than 4.6 MT COe per service population annually 2 The City of South San Francisco adopted a CAP on February 12, than the B set in the CAP are used in this analysis to determine cumulative the generation of GHGs. The thresholds used in this analysis are Produce emissions of no more than 3.58 MT COe per service population annually by 2020 2 Produce emissions of no more than 3.08 MT COe per service population annually by 2035 2 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-20 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The BAAQMD has established a per service population emissions th 32 reduction goals of reaching 1990 levels by 2020. The City of Sou stringent than the BAAQMD thresholds and, therefore, would also 32 goals. By furthering the r 32 goals, the emissions of GHGs from the City actions would not significant and, further, would not contradict the goals of plan purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Project Impacts and Mitigation Various aspects of constructing, operating, and eventually disco residential development will result in GHG emissions. Operationa use associated with heating, lighting, and powering buildings (t consumption), pumping and processing water (which consumes elect transportation and decomposition of waste associated with buildi also create GHG emissions in its construction and demolition pha in construction equipment, creation and decomposition of buildin other activities. However, it is noted that new development does GHG emissions. Occupants of new buildings are often relocating a emissions from other locations. The City of South San Francisco cannot generate enough GHG emiss change on its own. The Specific Plan development participates in contribution of GHG emissions that, when combined with the cumul anthropogenic sources of GHGs, impact global climate change. The definition a type of cumulative impact and the participation in this cumulative impact is through its incremental contribution of GHG emissions. Therefore, the discus cumulative in nature. 4.4.4Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, e that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact 4.4-1 Implementation of the proposed project would genera emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant on the environment. This is considered a potentially significant However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact t . Construction Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in GHG construction activities. For plan-level analysis of construction City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-21 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions quantification of the emissions and the implementation BMPs to r Specific Plan does not have a detailed growth forecast as to the amount of anticipated growth is known. The analysis assumes that occur each year for 20 years in order to reach build-out. To acc redevelopment as well as new development, an areawide average of approx development is assumed to be demolished and reconstructed over the s3 (Construction Emissions, MT COe) identifies the anticipated emissions from construction over t 2 development of the Specific Plan. Table 4.4-3 Construction Emissions, MT COe 2 CO CH NO COe 2422 Annual 720.43 0.09 0.00 722.30 Full Development 14,408.69 1.78 0.00 14,445.99 a SOURCE: Atkins (2014) (taken from the CalEEMod Model). In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be multiplied 422 by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH and NO).The 42 conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will a. Construction emissions were analyzed assuming the same level of over 20 years. Approximately 1 year was analyzed in CalEEMod. Therefore total emissions over the full development is the annual emissions times 20. Because GHGs remain in the atmosphere for years, even the tempor activities would be cumulatively considerable without the implem BMPs, the General Plan policies, and CAP policies to reduce cons following General Plan and CAP policies address construction-related G Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all federal and quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants f where feasible. Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures Guidelines. Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, i Waste Management Act of 1989. Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and c Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. South San Francisco requires that 100 percent of all inert solid 65 percent of all non-inert solids (all other materials) from constru be recycled. All demolition projects costing over $5,000 and all 2,000 sf or more in size. Eligible projects must submit a Waste Manag This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, th by the BAAQMD for construction related GHG emissions, therefore regional, and local plans and policies are used to determine sig Plan and CAP policies along with mitigation measure MM4.4-1 woul South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-22 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Incorporation of the General Plan and CAP policies would reduc generation of waste from construction activities, thereby reduci waste disposal and decomposition. Implementation of mitigation m emissions associated with waste and would have the potential to emission by reducing the amount or type of fuel utilized at cons All construction projects shall incorporate, to the greatest ex 9 Management Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions as indicated b Best Management Practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction limited to: Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) constructi 15 percent of the fleet Using local building materials of at least 10 percent Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition mate Operational The proposed Specific Plan would result in long-term operational during the operation of land uses developed under the proposed S for this analysis have been established as 3.58 MT COe per service population for 2020 and 3.08 MT 2 COe per service population for 2035. Service population for this ana 2 of residents and employees anticipated in Specific Plan developm population within the Specific Plan (at 25 percent of build-out)19. Using a per square foot employment estimate, employment within the new development (and This results in a total service population of 7,623. The proposed Specific Plan is designed to expand the available t infrastructure, enhancing connectivity for bicycle and pedestria density and mixed-use development near transit facilities. Inclu design features, the Specific Plan would generate an estimated 2e annually or 3.77 MT 2 COe per service population as detailed in Table 4.4-4 (Specific Plan E 2 As shown in Table 4.4-4, Specific Plan emissions would not meet the CAP threshold of 3.58e 2 per service population by 2020. However, as build out of the project appropriate threshold would be the 2035 threshold of 3.08 MT COe per service population. Even with 2 the incorporation of project design features, the Specific Plan woul thresholds; therefore, the project requires additional reduction. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Above BMPs are subject to change over time. Bay Area Air Quality 9 at www.baaqmd.gov. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-23 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.4-4 Specific Plan Emissions Sources CO CH NO COe a 2422 Area 78.86 0.06 0.00 81 b Electricity 4,791.87 0.22 0.04 4,810 Natural Gas 6,875.01 0.13 0.13 6,917 Transportation 15,610.98 0.41 0.00 15,620 Waste 500.65 29.59 0.00 1,122 Water 141.60 1.00 0.08 186 Total 28,736 Per Service Population 3.77 SOURCE: Atkins (2014) (taken from the CalEEMod Model). a. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to 422 be multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 resp for CH and NO). The conversion is not shown in the table and 42 therefore the rows will not add across. b. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emiss Examples of area sources include hearths, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. The policies within the CAP are applicable to all new developmen herein is based on the policies in the CAP. All reduction assump Appendix C of this document. Table 4.4-5 (Reduced Specific Plan Emissions) shows the reduced inventory with the incorporation of the mitigation measures MM4.4-2 thro assumptions and reduction calculations are detailed in Appendix mitigation measures, the proposed Specific Plan emissions would meet t COe per service population by 2035. Therefore, implementation of m2 2 through MM4.4-10 would reduce this impact to . Implementation of the following mitigation measures would incorp the CAP in order to reduce the GHG emissions anticipated from th Plan. The reduction measures are titled based on the CAP measure supporting measures, meaning that by themselves they do not resu included in conjunction with other measures support the success Support Expansion of Public and Private Transit Programs to Redu Commutes (1.2). Employers within the study area shall subscribe to the South Sa TDM Ordinance such that a minimum of 39 percent of all employees are included. The South San Francisco TDM Ordinance requires that all nonresidential develop trips per day or more meet a 28 percent non-drive-alone peak hour requirement with fees assesse noncompliance. Reduce Dependence on Autos through Smart Parking Policies (1.3). This measure would implement Smart Parking Policies, such as shared parking, to red 10 percent. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-24 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.4-5 Reduced Specific Plan Emissions Sources CO CH NO COe a 2422 Area 63.80 0.02 0.01 64 b Electricity 3,570.72 0.16 0.03 3,584 Natural Gas 5,108.37 0.10 0.09 5,139 Transportation 13,386.18 0.35 0.00 13,394 Waste 500.65 29.59 0.00 1,122 Water 127.80 0.87 0.07 166 Total 23,470 Per Service Population 3.079 SOURCE: Atkins (2014) (taken from the CalEEMod Model). a. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be 422 multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respect and 4 NO).The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rowill not add 2 across. b. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emiss of area sources include hearths, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Expand the Use of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles (2.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses can encourage the use of alternative-fueled vehicles by providin measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a minimu chargers are installed within nonresidential land uses and withi capabilities are available for a minimum of 200 vehicles. Reduce Emissions from Off-Road Vehicles And Equipment (2.2). In support of this measure, development within the study area shall ensure that a m lawnmowers and leaf blowers acquired/used within the study area would that there be sufficient electrical outlets outside of all resid the use of non-gas-fueled lawn maintenance equipment. Maximize Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment through Stan Plan Review Process (3.1). All new development within the study area shall, at a minimum, comply with the CALGreen Tier 1 standards and exceed 2013 Title 10 percent. Address Heat Island Issues and Expand the Urban Forest (3.4). At a minimum, 322,000 square feet of all new nonresidential development and 75 new re heat island effect issues by using high albedo surfaces and tech CALGreen Standards. This is in addition to the requirements of ant trees in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 13.30 with placement used Promote Energy Information Sharing and Educate the Community abo Efficient Behaviors and Construction (3.5). Develop as part of the Specific Plan an educational information packet that will be distributed to resid These information packets shall detail potential behavioral chan energy, such as unplugging appliances, air-drying clothes, and d City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-25 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Energy Reduction (4.1). In addition to complying with MM4.4-6, the development within th study area shall include the use of solar panels such that a minimum o nonresidential land use roof space is converted to solar panels, 205 solar hot water heaters, and the electricity of an additional 75 arrays associated with the new residential development. Water Reduction (6.1). Nonresidential and residential land uses shall reduce per capita consumption by 40 gallons per day. Measures to be implemented to include, but are not limited to: Limiting turf area in commercial and multi-family projects Restricting hours of irrigation to between 3:00 and 2 hours after sunrise (suggestion to be AM included in the energy information saving package) Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants Installing drip irrigation systems Reducing impervious surfaces Installing high-efficiency, water-saving appliances Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, po the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact 4.4-2 Implementation of the proposed project would conflict with plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. This is considered a potentially impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this to . As indicated in Impact 4.4-1, with implementation of mitigation, the proposed Specific Plan wo in per service population emissions of approximately 3.08 MT COe, the per service population goal 2 the City to exceed the AB 32 goals moving past 2020. Therefore, development within the Specific Plan would be consistent with both A 10 Further, SB 375 requires that MPOs include sustainable communities strategies for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; aligning planning for transpo specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. SB 375 targets require a 7 to 8 percent reduction by 2020 and between 13 to 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each Specific Plan is not specifically subject to reduction requirements u 375 targets. With the implementation of the Specific Plan design features and mitigati The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the MPO for the Sa 10 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-26 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 11 MM4.4-4, traffic within the Specific Plan is anticipated to be r Therefore, the implementation of the Specific Plan would furtherAB 32 and SB 375 legislative initiatives. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, im MM4.4-1 through MM4.4-10 would reduce this impact to . 4.4.5References BAAQMD. 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report for California En Thresholds of Significance, October. . 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Base Year 2007, February. California Air Pollutant Control Officers Association. 2013. Cal Version 2013 2.2. California Air Resources Board (California ARB). 2007. Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California, December 20. . 2010. Proposed SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Targets: Documentation of the Resulting Emiss on MPO Data, August 9. California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Projecting Future Sea Level. White Paper. Prepared by Dan Cayan, Peter Bromirski, Katharine Hayhoe, Mary Tyree, Mike Detti3 (Projected global sea level rise (SLR) (cm) for the SRES A1fi, A2, and scenarios. SLR for A2 and B1 scenarios is estimated by combining model simulations with MAGICC projections for the ice melt compo estimated from MAGICC based upon A2 temperature changes scaled a A1fi).CEC-500-2005-202-SF, p. 19, March. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Repor Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.). Cambri University Press. . 2007b.Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. R.B. Alley et al. The 34 percent reduction is based on the difference in VMT betwe 11 rates and the trip rates identified in the traffic study. The 14 the project specific traffic study and the reductions from the i the ITE trip generation rates would represent an accurate baseli reduction is presented as a range. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.4-27 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (SFBCD. n.d. San Francisco Bay Scenarios for Sea Level Rise Index Map. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/climate_change/index_map.shtml(accessed February 13, 2014). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2014. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan, February 13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Climate ChangeHealth and Environmental Effects. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html#climate (accessed February 10, 2014). . 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902008. EPA# 430-R-10-006, April. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1992. USGS Fact Sheet: Gas (Methane) HydratesA New Frontier, September. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.4-28 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning 4.5LAND USE/PLANNING This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff implementation of the proposed project. No comment letters speci were received in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) cir Data for this section were taken from the City of South San Fran relevant documents. Full reference-list entries for all cited ma (References). 4.5.1Environmental Setting The City of South San Francisco is located within a broad valley County with adjoining hillsides formed by the San Bruno Mountain on the west, both of which slope toward San Francisco Bay. The C surrounded by the Daly City to the north and San Bruno to the so the majority of which is developed. Single-family residential accounts while parks and open space occupy over 10 percent, business parks fortechnology research and development and manufacturing use occupy 14 percent, commercial motels occupy 10 percent, and less than 4 acres of vacant land, half of which is located in the northernmost poi Sierra Point, where there is substantial soil contamination. Por remediation and a portion of the land was recently entitled for hotel. The other half of the vacant acreage is located within We making it difficult to develop; thus, virtually all growth in th intensification. Specific Plan Characteristics The Specific Plan study area encompasses approximately 300 acres subareas in the geographical center of the City. The study area corridors, which separates the Downtown and East of 101 subareas interaction between the two subareas. On the west, the Downtown retail Downtown, which is surrounded by a mix of residential, se warehousing uses. On the east, the East of 101 subarea is the succ center of the City, but contains underdeveloped light industrial101 within the study area. At the center of the study area, the Calt US-101 freeway and adjacent roadway segments, which makes the stat According to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, Downt high-density residential land uses predominate the Downtown suba US-101 business technology park, business commercial, and mixed in Other land designations found within the study area include Down City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning residential, business commercial, auto-oriented commercial, scho recreation, and vacant uses. Existing General Plan Designations The City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element ou land use decision-making, provides the General Plan land use cla land use policies. The Land Use Element divides the City into fo land use and urban design patterns and the need for focused plan Plan encompasses two of the fourteen subareas: Downtown and East Land Use Diagram identifies properties within the Specific Plan use designations: Low Density Residential This designation provides for single-family residential developm with densities up to 8.0 units per net acre. Mainly intended for but attached single-family units may be permitted provided each and private outdoor open space. Downtown Medium Density Residential This designation provides for residential developments at densities ranging from 15.1 to 25.0 units per ne types is permitted. Downtown High Density Residential This designation provides for residential development at densities ranging from 25.1 to 40.0 units per net acre for lo (21,789 square feet [sf]) in area. For lots smaller than H-acre, per acre. Downtown Commercial This designation provides for a range of uses in commercial core Downtown, including retail stores, eating and drinking establish entertainment establishments and theaters, financial, business a educational and social services, and government offices. In addi permitted on second and upper floors only, and subject to a use Business Commercial This designation is intended for business and professional offic visitor service establishments, and retail. Permitted uses inclu business, professional, medical and public offices, and visitor activities. Regional commercial centers, restaurants, and relate appropriate standards. Transportation Center This designation is intended to support the Caltrain rail line. Mixed Industrial This designation is intended to provide and protect industrial l wide range of manufacturing, industrial processing, general serv distribution, and serve commercial uses. Existing Zoning The City of South safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general wel South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning there are seven different zones located within the study area: D Downtown Residential High, Downtown Residential Medium, Public, Commercial. Downtown Core This zone is intended to maintain the pedestrian-oriented enviro -level commercial uses and pedestrian-oriented development that encourages pedestrian activ Downtown Mixed-Use This zone is intended to provide a mix of residential developmen retail, office uses, hotels, and other commercial uses oriented Downtown Residential High This zone is for multi-unit development at densities form 25.1 to 40 units per acre with a maximum of 30 units for lots smaller than development and hotels are not permitted. Downtown Residential Medium This zone provides for a full range of housing types at densities ranging from 15.1 to 25 units per acre. Consistent wit minimum residential density of 15.1 units per acre. Retail and o not permitted. Public/Quasi-Public This zone is for government owned facilities, civic uses and pub utilities, and quasi-public uses such as hospitals and large institu either public or private schools. The purpose of this zone is to 2 or 3 acres or more that may not be appropriate within other zones. Th Mixed Industrial This zone provides areas for a wide range of manufacturing, indu processing, general service, warehousing, storage and distributi and to protect areas where such uses now exist. Industries that amounts of hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other Conventional residential and/or group residential development ar -scale retail and service uses serving local employees, residents, and visitors may be permitte consistent with the General Business Commercial This zone is intended for business and professional offices, vis service establishments, and retail uses with an emphasis on larg of US-101. A wide range of nonresidential uses are appropriate i financial, business, professional, medical and public offices, a commercial activities such as warehouse clubs and other large-fo Surrounding Land Uses The areas immediately surrounding the Specific Plan study area i north of the study area is a mix of residential, community comme Paradise Valley Neighborhood is located immediately north of the density residential units and is served by Martin School, which area. To the east of the study area are business commercial uses which serves as the guiding plan to develop the area with commer the study area is the Lindenville Neighborhood, comprised mostly City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Colma Creek Canal. To the west of the study area is a mix of res medium, and low residential, and low density residential and ope 4.5.2Regulatory Framework Federal and State There are no federal or state regulations related to land use ap Local South San Francisco General Plan Adopted in 1999 and most recently amended in 2014, the South San vision for the long-range physical and economic development for specific implementing actions, such as the Zoning Code, and esta standards. The General Plan also allows City departments, other to design projects that will enhance the character of the commun environmental resources, and minimize hazards. The South San Fra following chapters: Land Use Planning Sub-Areas Transportation Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Economic Development Open Space and Conservation Health and Safety Noise These chapters include six of the seven elements required by sta address local concerns and regional requirements. The seventh requ which is updated on a more regular basis than the General Plan a The General Plan contains a Planning Sub-Areas Element, which es individual planning subareas within the City. The Planning Sub- citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. S plans, specific plans, or development plans. Where appropriate, how these plans may need to be changed in order to conform to th General Plan. The subareas, fourteen in all, were collectively d design patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and act the Downtown and East of 101 subareas. The applicable goals, objectives, and policies of each of the ab section pertaining to the relevant resource in this EIR. The thr include the identification of conflicts with goals and policies. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Land Use Element and Planning Sub-Areas Element of the General P potentially relevant to the Specific Plan are analyzed under Imp4.5-1. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Policies set forth in the General as South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20. The Zoning Code specified zoning districts and imposes standards on those uses. The boundaries would be subject to the provisions of the Specific Pl contents would work together with the South San Francisco Zoning there is a conflict. The Zoning Code will be amended to address their processing. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan The Specific Plan is located in the influence area of the San Fr therefore subject to airport-related height limitations of the S (ALUP). The San Mateo County ALUP restricts building heights wit 150 feet above mean sea level. San Mateo County ALUP Chapter V was Proposed Specific Plan The Specific Plan land use strategy is focused on encouraging in Downtown and East of 101 subareas, both of which are within a 0. -term goals, articulated in the General Plan, of preserving the scale and character of existing Plan is also intended to increase transit ridership by bringing walk of the Caltrain station. In parallel, Caltrain has plans to location to ensure accessibility. The Specific Plan designates areas within the study area with sp transition the Downtown area into a transit-oriented, pedestrian will provide a development framework through establishment of th Downtown Subareas: >Downtown Transit Core: This area lies within 0.25 mile (a 5-minute walk) of the propos extension of the Caltrain station and undercrossing. This area is envi mixed-use area and, due to its proximity to the Caltrain station suitable developable sites, is the most suitable for the highest in the Downtown area. The higher-density housing would help supp since residential units would be within a short walk of the stat pedestrian activity needed to support Downtown businesses. The f residential development with ground level retail or support uses required. This Downtown Transit Core subarea would allow up to 1 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning acre; a minimum of 80 dwelling units per acre is required. A maximum of 120 dwelling per acre would be allowed for development meeting specified crit >Grand Avenue Core: Grand Avenue would remain the historic retail center of the Cit the district would extend from Airport Boulevard on the east to The district only includes the properties directly fronting Gran interesting buildings would be retained wherever possible. New m underutilized properties would be encouraged but guidelines woul along Grand Avenue in order to respect the historic character of create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Off Grand Avenue, o Grand Avenuefacing lots, taller heights will be allowed to help accommodate uses and increase development opportunities. The Grand Avenue Co0 dwelling units per acre and requires a minimum of 14 units per a to 80 dwelling units per acre or 100 units per acre on corner si >Downtown Residential Core: Outside of the Grand Avenue Core and Downtown Transit Core areas, the remaining areas between Tamarack Lane and Second Downtown Residential Core. This designation is intended to encou currently allowed, but would still be compatible in scale with t districts: Downtown High Density Residential and Downtown Medium The areas encompassed in this district are within two blocks of Downtown Residential Core designation would allow up to 80 dwell minimum of 40 units per acre. Densities up to 100 units per acre criteria are met, and for the inclusion of affordable senior hou dwelling units would be allowed. >Linden Neighborhood Center: This area is defined as the properties fronting Linden Avenue between California and Juniper Avenues. The current small along Linden Avenue and California and Juniper Avenues provide a robust neighborhood center that will be walkable for the surroun could be supplemental to the more citywide destinations that wou Avenue. Some aspects of this zone include ground level retail us Linden Avenue; and providing special street paving to accommodat Linden Neighborhood Center would allow densities ranging from 40 to 60 dwelling units per acres, with 80 units per acre allowed if specific criteria are m >Linden Commercial Corridor: This area includes the properties fronting Linden Avenue from California Avenue to Sixth Lane and from Second Lane to Rai Avenue throughout its length has historically been a location fo and today many of these remain and serve as resources for local This designation applies to areas of Linden Avenue south of Aspe otherwise fall into the Downtown Residential Core, Downtown Tran Avenue Core districts. Commercial and mixed uses will continue t encouraged on properties within this corridor. While not require vide opportunities for local services for adjoining residential mixed use locations, improvements to the sidewalks and streetsca provide additional pedestrian amenities and accessibility especi use will be encouraged at ground level in this corridor. Other r High Density Residential district will pertain with densities fr25 to 40 dwelling units per acre. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Eastern Neighborhood: >Eastern Neighborhood: Due to its proximity to the Caltrain station, regional highways Francisco International Airport, San Francisco and Silicon Valle innovation hub anchored by Genentech, the Eastern Neighborhood i for high-density employment. To optimize circulation in this are enhanced with a more well-integrated network of vehicular and pe This is intended to expand upon the limited, vehicular-oriented currently dominates the area. No residential uses will be allowe >Transit Office/R&D Core: The Transit Office/R&D district is bounded by on the North by East Grand Avenue, on the east by Gateway Boulevard, on the s Boulevard, and on the west by Industrial Way and the US-101 righ of parking lots and low scale service and light industrial uses, with taller buildings, which would conform to FAA height limitat would support corporate offices, hotels, and other major facilit immediately adjacent to the platform extension of the Caltrain s from the San Francisco International Airport, Downtown South San various employment centers on the peninsula. With the extension the construction of the pedestrian underpass, this area would be Downtown, providing opportunity for a significant number of work Downtown at lunch and other times for services, restaurants, cof amenities. In the Transit Office/R&D Core the allowable developm to 3.5 FAR. No residential uses will be allowed in this area. Other Districts: >Other Districts: Other land designations would remain in effect in the Downtown and surrounding the rail tracks and US-101. Residential areas north core would remain as currently planned; existing land use and zo allow some intensification of use if desired. The industrial and focused around the transportation infrastructure currently serve related uses; it is unlikely that there will be pressure for the horizon of the Specific Plan. In addition to the various districts within the Specific Plan, p planning tool that guides and directs new development; economic improvements; transportation improvements; parking, pedestrian a and preservation of cultural resources and art space. Adoption o amendments and Zoning amendments to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan will provide development framework through the est and policies: Land Use and Urban Design Guiding Principle 1 Revitalize the Downtown of South San Francisco as a citywide de economically vital, diverse, active, and that encompasses a vari Policy LU-1 Encourage the use of local workforce and local business sourcing for development in the plan area so that money in City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning wages and materials used in the construction of these developments is invested in the local economy. Policy LU-2 Encourage a mix of uses, activities, and amenities throughout the Downtown to assist in revitalization of the Downtown as a citywide and regional destination. Policy LU-3 Require ground level retail or other active ground floor uses i future development along Grand Avenue and on key intersecting streetsLinden, Cypress and Maple Avenuesto ensure activity and vitality in the Downtown. Guiding Principle 2 Increase development intensities in the Downtown to grow the re population and thus support a variety of commercial and service Policy LU-4 Establish the highest intensity land uses within ¼-mile of the Caltrain station. Here, densities up to 120 dwelling units per acre will be encouraged. Policy LU-5 Designate a high-density district surrounding Grand Avenue and in proximity to the station as allow up to 80 dwelling units per acre. Policy LU-6 Maintain the scale of Grand Avenue itself by slightly lowering allowable heights along its length to protect its historic character, while encouraging a mix of uses with retail at the ground level. Guiding Principle 3 Preserve and enhance the character of existing Downtown neighbo continuing to encourage modest intensifications of use as curren Policy LU-7 Retain existing land use and density standards for residential neighborhoods outside of the Downtown core. Guiding Principle 4 Encourage redevelopment of the East of 101 neighborhood between Boulevard, East Grand Avenue and the US-101 corridor as a high intensity office/R&D district. Guiding Principle 5 Encourage variety in new housing development. Policy LU-8 Encourage a mix of housing types including ownership, rental, family and senior housing, and also encourage provision of units accessible to persons with disabilities. Policy LU-9 Encourage the provision of affordable housing in the Specific Plan area, by working with non-profit housing developers and through inclusionary or in-lieu fee provisions. Downtown Subareas Guiding Principle 6 Retain existing residential neighborhoods that surround the Dow currently planned, with no proposed changes in zoning. Guiding Principle 7 Focus public investments in the historic core of the City, alon from Airport Boulevard to Spruce Avenue, and on adjoining streetthe South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning pedestrian-priority zoneto create an attractive pedestrian environment to support businesses Downtown. Guiding Principle 8 Focus increases in residential and mixed-use densities within 1 Caltrain station and in areas proximate to Grand Avenue to incre Caltrain as well as Grand Avenue businesses. Guiding Principle 9 Require pedestrian-oriented ground level retail and service use or intersecting streets or in the neighborhood center on Linden California and Juniper Avenues. Encourage ground level retail in, especially in the Downtown Transit Core. Guiding Principle 14 Redesign Grand Avenue to accommodate wider sidewalks and an impr streetscape that will better support the retail environment of t Eastern Neighborhood Guiding Principle 10 Encourage high-density employment. Guiding Principle 11 Enhance the few existing streets with a more fine-grained patte bicycle/pedestrian routes to allow convenient circulation throug rather than the limited, vehicular-oriented pattern that dominat today. Guiding Principle 12 Provide a direct connection from the planned pedestrian/bicycle tracks through the northern part of the area to allow station dr pick-ups as well as direct bicycle and pedestrian access to the Downtown. Guiding Principle 13 Allow retail uses along the Grand Avenue extension to provide a office population and a strong visual and physical linkage to th the west. 4.5.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method The analysis in this section addresses the compatibility of land Plan with existing and planned land uses within and adjacent to any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. CEQA requires that the environmental document evaluate direct ph that may be caused by the project as well as reasonably foreseea environment that may be caused by the project. Economic and soci are not to be treated as significant effects on the environment physical change caused by economic or social effects of a projec economic and social effects of a physical change may be used to significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 1 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have the environment if it would: Physically divide an established community Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulatio over the project (including, but not limited to, the general pla program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoidin environmental effect Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natura Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project physically divide an established com Existing and future uses within the study area include residenti research and development activities. Redevelopment under the Spe existing land uses in the study area and surrounding area. The S changes to the existing circulation system, or other barriers th The proposed below-grade pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing at an additional connection between development east and west of US-101 and the Caltrain station. Railroad Avenue would also be extended to the east side of US-101. Additionally, streetscape improvements and new public plazas would encourage pedestrian co. Because the Specific Plan does not include barriers or changes t physically divide an existing neighborhood, implementation of the proposed project would have related to physically dividing an established community, and no required in this EIR. Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat community conservation plan? As previously discussed in Section IV(e) of the Initial Study prep, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservat regional, or state habitat conservation plan that is applicable n is not subject to any above-mentioned plans, implementation of the proposed project would have on biological conservations plans, and no further analysis of th South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable land us an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact 4.5-1 Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would and permit land uses not currently allowed within the study area. Ho the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable la plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of mitig environmental effect. This impact would be . The proposed Specific Plan includes General Plan amendments, as d Specific Plan would result in changes to the land use designatio build-out population and employment tables, projected jobs to em improvements to streets and bikeways systems. Additionally, impl includes Zoning amendments to add the Downtown Specific Plan int Plan Districts); add a reference to the Specific Plan in District P Plan study area; update land use regulations to be consistent wi development and design regulations and standards. Once adopted, General Plan land use designations and standards for the study a document for development in the study area. The proposed amendme Zoning Ordinance would be considered and adopted at the same tim The proposed Specific Plan would yield significant amounts of ne the study area, where development potential would be determined intensity assumptions to land within each district. Since the si small, some consolidation of sites will likely be required befor will take time as many properties are economically viable in the motivation for many property owners to take any action. Therefor and for assessing environmental impacts associated with the plan 25 percent of parcels in the study area would be developed within -year timeframe. Assuming only 25 percent of the parcels within the study area wo approximate 20-year timeframe of the plan, the Specific Plan has the pote residential uses to the existing 1,426 units in the area, for a total of 2,861 residential units in the proximity of the Caltrain station. Additionally, the Specific Plan has the1.2 million sf of new office/R&D uses, which represents as many as 2,400 or mor As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), this EIR discus proposed project and applicable regional and local plans. The plans ap include the South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Element an Plan Planning Subareas: Downtown and East of 101. Consistency of policies from these plans is provided in Table 4.5-1 (South San Francisco General Plan Policies). In specific cases where the policies or goals are similar, or address City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning been summarized for multiple policies. If one policy or goal is separate consistency analysis is provided for that policy. Table 4.5-1 South San Francisco General Plan Policies South San Francisco General Plan Project Consistency Land UseGuiding Policies Policy 2-G-1. Preserve the scale and character of Consistent. The proposed Specific Plan includes Guiding Principle 3, which established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in nonresidential areas. s within the study area will be intensified with higher residential densities Plan stresses maintaining and updating the existing character of neighborhoods to ensure the scale and character of the Downtown preserved. In add residential neighborhoods that surround Downtown as currently pl residential neighborhoods to the north, west, and south are important components of the character of South San Francisco and would pro neighborhoods, as no changes to their current zoning or land use made. Implementation of the Specific Plan would provide better c and an improved pedestrian environment to link these surrounding neighborhoods with the Downtown area and transit. Policy 2-G-2. Maintain a balanced land use program Consistent. The Specific Plan would designate different land uses within the that provides opportunities for continued economic various districts and corridors that include residential, retail growth, and building intensities that reflect South San transit station. The new land use program would result in higher intensi economic and residential growth, which would be further supporte regional access. easy transit access provided by the Caltrain station. Policy 2-G-5. Consistent. and symbolic center, and a focus of residential, and encourage intensifications of uses while respecting the hist commercial, and entertainment activities. especially of Grand Avenue. New improvements would be focused on Grand Avenue to return this historic corridor to again being the focus community, while encouraging retention of existing, local busine Downtown area and attracting new businesses to increase economic growth. Policy 2-G-6. Maximize opportunities for residential Consistent. The Downtown and East of 101 areas of South San Francisco are development, including through infill and redevelopment, highly urbanized environments. The Specific Plan proposes higher-density without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating residential uses through emphasis on infill projects and develop conflicts with industrial operations. underutilized or vacant parcels and would have the potential to add up to 1,435 housing units within the study area. Improvements and development in the area would improve the standard of living for existing neigh providing additional services and improving public rights-of-way with lighting and sidewalks upgrades as well as improving circulations for alte modes of transportation. Policy 2-G-7. Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, Consistent. The Specific Plan focuses on properties within 0.25 and 0.5 mile and office development in centers where they would of the Caltrain station, which is proposed for a platform extension south of the support transit, in locations where they would provide existing location. The Specific Plan proposes various mixed-use centers within increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack a 0.25-mile radius of the Caltrain station to encourage transit ridersh such facilities, and in corridors where such increase movement between the Downtown and the East of 101 area. developments can help to foster identity and vitality. Implementation of the Specific Plan would provide a sense of ide individual corridors while also providing a cohesive identity an study area as a whole. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Table 4.5-1 South San Francisco General Plan Policies South San Francisco General Plan Project Consistency Policy 2-G-8. Provide incentives to maximize Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes the highest land use intensities of community orientation of new development, and to residential, business, and other uses in the study area within 0 mile of the promote alternative transportation modes. Caltrain station to promote increased transit ridership as well as to promote would encourage a mix of uses, activities, and amenities through Downtown to assist in revitalization of the Downtown as a regional destination, which will be supported by the Caltrain station. Land UseImplementing Policies Policy 2-I-1. Consistent. The Specific Plan includes various General Plan amendments, Subdivision Regulations in the Municipal Code for which would be adopted concurrent with the adoption of the Speci consistency with the General Plan. General Plan amendments would modify the General Plan to adopt t Specific Plan as the governing document for the study area as well as change the land use designations to match those in the Specific Plan. O Specific Plan is adopted, changes to the Zoning Ordinance would consistency between all three documents. Policy 2-I-2. Establish height limitations for specific Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes height limitations based on the areas as delineated on Figure 2-3. For these specific desired building intensity and type of use proposed within a particular district areas, do not regulate heights separately by underlying or corridor. Because the greatest density of uses and services w base district uses. located within 0.25 mile of the Caltrain station, the Specific Plan proposes the greatest building heights in this area. The Specific Plan includes a General Plan amendment to change the existing Figure 2- limitations. Policy 2-I-6. Undertake a comprehensive review of the Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a Parking Report that recommends parking standards and established criteria for reduced strategies to reduce the number of surface level parking lots within t parking for mixed-used developments, for development area as well as refinements to parking requirements that would p that meets specified TDM criteria, and Medium- and reduction and decrease emissions. Different criteria and require High-Density Residential development. identified for the different districts and corridors within the study area due to differences in proposed land uses and development density. Policy 2-I-7. Establish a comprehensive design Consistent. Design standards and guidelines related to building design, standards and guideline strategy. building materials, site open space and landscape design, and pa structure/lot design have been incorporated into the Specific Pl for the Plan. The design standards are mandatory elements to be incorporated into individual project designs, while the design guidelines are considerations that would help inform design and individual proj Policy 2-I-8. As part of establishment of design Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes different districts and corridors wit guidelines and standards and design review, improve the study area, and individual corridors would have specific des the community orientation of new development. and guidelines. These design standards and guidelines are intended to promote the distinct identity and character of each area such th implementation of the Specific Plan would create a cohesive, att Downtown area, where an improved community orientation would be y established. Policy 2-I-9. Ensure that any design and development Consistent. The Specific Plan includes design and development standards standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the and guidelines that would preserve and enhance the character of unique patterns and characteristics of individual Downtown neighborhoods while allowing for new infill development neighborhoods. reflective of existing character. The purpose of the Specific Pl the Downtown subareas to create attractive, vibrant corridors that promote economic and pedestrian activity. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Table 4.5-1 South San Francisco General Plan Policies South San Francisco General Plan Project Consistency Policy 2-I-18. Senior Citizen housing projects may be Consistent. The Specific Plan encourages a variety of housing types. The allowed to be constructed to a maximum density of 50 Downtown Residential Core allows an increase in density from 80 units/acres and off-street parking may be provided at a per acre for senior housing projects. ratio lower than that which is otherwise required. Planning Sub-Areas: DowntownGuiding Policies Policy 3.1-G-1. Consistent. The Specific Plan focuses public investments in the historic cor economic well-of the City, along Grand Avenue from Airport to Spruce, and on adjoining center. streets - the pedestrian-priority zone - to create an attractive pedestrian environment to support businesses Downtown. The Specific Plan pr revitalize Grand Avenue to be the main focus of the city center Downtown by developing ground-floor retail and other services along Grand Avenue. The creation of the pedestrian-priority zone would increase economic growth and create an active, vibrant Downtown environment. Policy 3.1-G-2. Encourage development of Downtown Consistent. The Specific Plan envisions the revitalization of Downtown South as a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use activity center with San Francisco as a citywide destination that is economically vit retail and visitor-oriented uses, business and personal active, and encompasses a variety of uses. The five Downtown sub services, government and professional offices, civic comprise the pedestrian-priority zone, where sidewalks would be wider to uses, and a variety of residential types and densities. support more pedestrian activity. Additionally, the five Downtow would support a range of residential types and densities with in nonresidential uses. Policy 3.1-G-3. Promote infill development, Consistent. Throughout the study area there are a number of surface parking intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites. lots, underutilized parcels, and vacant lots. Since the Downtown already highly urbanized, infill development would utilize these to implement the Specific Plan. Policy 3.1-G-4. Enhance linkages between Downtown Consistent. The Specific Plan includes improvements to various linkages to and transit centers, and increased street connectivity better connect Downtown with the Caltrain station and the Eastern with the surrounding neighborhoods. Neighborhood. Additionally, alleys and intersection improvements pedestrian-priority zone would help improve street connectivity within the area. Planning Sub-Areas: DowntownImplementing Policies Policy 3.1-I-1. Maintain land uses and development Consistent. The Specific Plan includes General Plan amendments to change intensities in Downtown in accordance with Table 3.1-2. the General Plan Land Use Diagram, the General Plan Standards for Density and Development Intensity, and Land Use classification text to r in intensity and density to show the Specific Plan land uses and intensities. The adoption of the General Plan amendments would r new land use and development intensities. Policy 3.1-I-2. Prohibit manufacturing, warehouses, and Consistent. The Downtown subareas promote the intensification of uses while marginal uses such as bars or adult entertainment, as respecting the historic fabric of the area, especially along Gra well as additional single-room occupancy units in Downtown subareas include the Downtown Residential Core, Downtown Downtown. Transit Core, Grand Avenue Core, and Linden Neighborhood Center. the Downtown subareas would allow manufacturing, warehouses, or Policy 3.1-I-3. Do not permit any commercial and office uses. In addition, none of the Downtown subareas would permit an uses in areas designated Downtown Residential. commercial and office uses within Downtown residential areas. Policy 3.1-I-4. Establish a height overlay zone in the Consistent. The Specific Plan includes a General Plan amendment to change Municipal Code corresponding to the standards depicted the Special Area Height Limitations to reflect the proposed chan in Figure 2-3. Do not maintain separate height limitations per Specific Plan land use. The adoption of the Gene requirements tied to underlying land uses. amendment would reflect the new height limitations. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Table 4.5-1 South San Francisco General Plan Policies South San Francisco General Plan Project Consistency Policy 3.1-I-5. Establish development standards in the Consistent. The Specific Plan includes design standards and guidelines intended to reinforce the traditional Downtown development pattern in order to development pattern. revitalize and increase the intensity and density of the differe the Downtown area. These standards and regulations would be inco into the Municipal Code via a zoning amendment. Policy 3.1-I-6. Work with the Peninsula Joint Corridors Not Applicable. The existing platform for the Caltrain station would be Board and other agencies to develop a new multi-modal extended southward with implementation of the Specific Plan in o transportation hub on the southeast side of the Grand promote accessibility and transit-oriented development. Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. Encourage the inclusion of a child care facility near the multi-modal hub. Policy 3.1-I-7. Undertake a Downtown streetscape Consistent. The Specific Plan includes an extensive streetscape improvement improvement program, which would include: plan that includes improvements for street landscaping, ground p paving, tree grates, benches, trash and other receptacles, bicyc Signage or banners along the east side of Airport standards, and public art. Signage would be incorporated into al Boulevard to announce Downtown and the auto row the Downtown area to inform users about parking, pedestrian safety, impo from US-101 features in the Downtown area, such as the Gateway entry points Signage for the new multi-modal transportation Avenue, and special events. In addition, signage would be used t center at the southeast corner of Grand transit users to the Caltrain station to help encourage easy access and Avenue/Airport Boulevard encourage increased ridership. A new street lighting system woul Tree planting, especially along Linden Avenue, safety and security as well as provide for an active nighttime e Maple Avenue, and Spruce Avenue and Miller, illuminating the Downtown area, especially the pedestrian-priority zone, Grand, and Commercial avenues plazas, and the Gateway entry points. The design of the new fixt bulbs would complement new development, provide unique character Vegetation along Railroad Avenue to provide a neighborhood streets, and be energy efficient. Lighting improvem buffer between Downtown residential uses and also occur to the underpass that would connect the Downtown area to the industrial areas to the south. Caltrain station and Eastern Neighborhood to increase safety and Policy 3.1-I-8. Improve pedestrian connections between crime. the new multi-modal transportation center and Downtown through techniques such as sidewalk bulbing, lighting improvements, and signage. Policy 3.1-I-9. Establish design and signage standards Consistent. Grand and Linden Avenues are part of the proposed pedestrian- for development along Grand and Linden avenues. Plan. Grand Avenue is the historic core of the City, where new d would be consistent with the character and feeling of the Avenue. New development along Linden Avenue would be consistent with the des standards and guidelines proposed in the Specific Plan. Policy 3.1-I-10. Require all development in Downtown Consistent. A Parking Report was prepared as part of the analysis for the to either meet the established off-street parking Specific Plan, in which strategies and recommendations were idened to requirements, or contribute an appropriate share to the reduce the number of surface level parking lots within the study Downtown Parking District to mitigate impacts refine parking requirements to promote fewer trips traveled and associated with development. emissions. The Parking Report includes a range of strategies to decrease the presence of off-street parking, which includes in-lieu parking fees, residential permit parking, meter parking, and a wayfindin help mitigate impacts associated with new development. Planning Sub-Areas: East of 101Guiding Policies Policy 3.5-G-1. Provide appropriate settings for a Consistent. The Eastern Neighborhood of the Specific Plan is proposed as an diverse range of nonresidential uses. urban, corporate office center that also incorporates retail use Office/Research and Development (R&D) Core is proposed as an urban employment district with corporate offices, hotels, and other ma and also incorporates retail and other nonresidential uses. The proposes no residential use within either of these districts. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Table 4.5-1 South San Francisco General Plan Policies South San Francisco General Plan Project Consistency Policy 3.5-G-3. Promote campus-style biotechnology, Consistent. The Specific Plan promotes biotechnology, research and high-technology, and research and development uses. development, and other technology based employment within the Ea Neighborhood and the Transit Office/R&D Core in order to be consistent with existing uses, such as Genentech, which is located within the Ea subarea. Planning Sub-Areas: East of 101Implementing Policies Policy 3.5-I-3. Do not permit any residential uses in the Consistent. In the small portion of the East of 101 area overlapping the study East of 101 area. area, the Specific Plan envisions an urban, corporate office for mentioned above, the Specific Plan encourages development of the Eastern Neighborhood with high-density employment uses, and would not permit any residential uses. Policy 3.5-I-4. Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific Consistent. The Specific Plan proposes a height limitation that is the plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 area to maximum limit permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Par 77 for the the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation properties immediately adjacent to the Caltrain station and a height limitati Regulations Part 77. of 85 feet for the properties that are not adjacent to the station but are located within 0.25 mile of the station. The proposed Specific Plan would support transit-oriented develo framework; create pedestrian linkages, alleys, and a pedestrian network; and employ new parking strategies. The General Plan enc uses, are compatible and harmonious with surrounding developmente the image and quality of life and the environment. olicies are designed to create vibrant and diverse commercial corridors; well-designed building public spaces; multi-modal streets to accommodate pedestrians, b with residential and employment densities that support transit use; a the residential areas north and south of the Downtown core would policies are intended to enhance the image of the community and uses. Added services in the areas would improve the standard of new residents in the area. The proposed project would represent a net change in land use acreage (see Table 3-1 [Existing and Proposed Land Uses]) but would not in itself r related to land use and planning. The Specific Plan would not co regulations that were adopted for the purpose of mitigating an e Plan would provide the City with TOD in an area that could suppo while maintaining the existing character and fabric of the well- community. The proposed project would permit a new mix of develos economic viability and provide employment, retail and housing op benefit the community. Consequently, this impact would be , and no mitigation is required. 4.5.4Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact analysis is only provided for those threshol potentially significant, or significant and unavoidable impact. provided for Effects Found Not to Be Significant, which result i South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable land us an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the pro with other development in the City of South San Francisco. This cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by South San Francisco General Plan and development of the related Cumulative land use impacts have the potential to occur where a to conflict with applicable land use plans adopted for the purpo environmental affect. Adherence to existing land use plans, poli such conflicts. Future development in the City of South San Fran consistency with adopted land use plans and policies and in acco which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to a It should be noted that future projects could also include Gener changes. However, modifications to existing land use patterns th necessarily represent an inherent negative effect on the environ do not conflict with the policies that were specifically adopted an environmental effect. Cumulative projects would primarily res land use patterns within areas of the City, and are therefore ge adjacent uses. However, should such analysis identify significan would be required to reduce those impacts to a less-than-signifi mitigation, the City may determine that the benefits derived fro sufficient to justify adoption of a Statement of Overriding Cons their associated projects to proceed. The proposed Specific revitalize Downtown South San Francisco to be a vibrant and successful community resource and a source of local and residents Downtown while maintaining a scale and character that is complementary; ( Avenue to return this historic corridor to being the focus of the c existing and local businesses to the Downtown, and protect histo pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well as the Downto The Specific Plan includes significant changes in the study area intensified and new land use designations implemented. However, adopted concurrent with the adoption of the Specific Plan. As de the Specific Plan would be consistent with the General Plan and Land uses types would be retained but modified through General P that greater residential densities would be allowed while retain Specific Plan would be consistent with the broad vision and poli General Plan, the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, Downtown area. Therefore, there would be no conflicts with adopted plans and policies resulting from City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.5-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.5 Land Use/Planning future development within the study area as a result of the Spec would be . 4.5.5References Atkins. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Report for Laguna Niguel Gateway Plan PEIR, October. PBS&J. 2009. City of Huntington Beach Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Pl, August. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=360. . 2010. City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance. Adopted July 28, 2010. http://zoning.ssf.net/zopdfs/complete.pdf (accessed December 2, 2013). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.5-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise 4.6NOISE This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff the proposed project. No comment letters addressing noise were r preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project. Data for this section were taken from the South San Francisco Mu South San Francisco General Plan; the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (C/CAG 2012), an analysis (Fehr & Peers 2014). Full reference-list entries for al (References). 4.6.1Environmental Setting Noise and Vibration Basics Quantification of Noise Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure magn using a logarithmic ratio of pressures, the scale of which gives pressures in the environment have a wide range of values and the a convenience in describing this range as a logarithm of the sou the logarithm of the ratio of the unknown sound pressure to a re account for the pitch of sounds and the corresponding sensitivit sound pressure level is adjusted with an A-weighting scheme base decibels (dBA). Typical A-weighted noise levels are listed in Ta4.6-1 (Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels). A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending o character of the noise sources, the time of day during which the affected by the noise. For example, noise that occurs at night t which occurs during the day because sleep may be disturbed. Addi requirement in the recovery from exposure to high noise levels d factors, different measures of noise exposure have been develope anticipated from these activities. For example, some indices con location by using a weighted average to estimate its habitabilit consider portions of the day and evaluate the nearby activities The most commonly used indices for measuring community noise lev (L), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). eq L, the equivalent energy level, is the average acoustical or soun eq measured during a prescribed period, such as 1 minute, 15 minutehour, or 8 hours. It is the decibel sound level that contains an equal amount of energy as a flu given period of time. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Table 4.6-1 Typical A-Weighted Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet 100 Gas lawn mower at 3 feet 90 Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Large business office Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night 20 Broadcast/recording studio 10 Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing SOURCE: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise SupplementA Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (October 1998). th L, the X-percentile-exceeded sound level, is the sound level exceeded X X period. For example, L is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of a prescribed period. 50 CNEL, community noise equivalent level, is the average equivalent A- a 24-hour period. This measurement applies weights to noise leve hours to compensate for the increased disturbance response of people a the equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with a +5 dBA we occurring between 7:00 and 10:00 and a +10 dBA weighting applied to all sound occurring PMPM between 10:00 and 7:00 Similar to the CNEL, L, the day-night average noise level is a PMAM dn 24-hour average L with a +10 dBA weighting applied to noise during the hours of 1 to PM eq 7:00 . L and CNEL are typically within 1 dBA of each other and, for most AM dn purposes, are interchangeable. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise The decibel level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) exponenti that sound increases. For a single point source such as a piece normally decreases by about 6 dBA for each doubling of distance such as a heavily traveled traffic corridor, attenuates by appr 3 dBA per doubling of distance, provided that the surrounding site obstacles that either scatter or reflect noise. Noise from roadw effects due to vegetation and loose soils may either absorb or s as high as 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance. Other contribu include meteorological conditions and the presence of manmade obstacles barriers. Barriers between a noise source and a receiver can sub receiver. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a sour least 5 dBA of noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increase Noise Effects on many factors such as the source of the noise, its loudness re the time of day. The reaction to noise can also be highly subjec noise can vary widely among individuals in a community. Because sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to b 5 dBA change in community noise levels is clearly noticeable, and dBA change is the smallest increment that is perceivable by most receivers. Generally, 1 to 2 Although the reaction to noise may vary, it is clear that noise is a sign environment, and excessively noisy conditions can affect -being. The effects of noise are often only transitory, but adverse effects repeated exposure. The effects of noise on a community can be or disturbance, permanent hearing loss, human performance and behav communication, extra-auditory health effects, and general annoya Environmental Vibration Basics Vibration is defined as any oscillatory motion induced in a stru result of some type of input excitation. Vibration consists of w There are several types of wave motion in solids, unlike in air, and bending. The solid medium can be excited by forces, moments, -borne/ground- Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, c with distance away from the source. Soil properties also affect th groundborne vibration interacts with a building there is usuallyto-foundation coupling loss, but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural resonances buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows or items surfaces. The vibration of building surfaces can also be radiate rumbling noise, known as groundborne noise. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between bar perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is c buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement o Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the rarely perceptible. The range of interest in groundborne vibrati is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Existing Noise Environment Existing noise sources that affect the study area are described Operational Noise Sources The study area is currently developed with moderate density resident uses including Downtown retail commercial, business commercial, industrial development. No residential uses are located east of dominated by industrial, business commercial, and auto-serving c commercial uses are located throughout the study area west of th Densities generally increase toward Grand Avenue, which is the major Down Business commercial and auto-serving commercial uses are concent Industrial uses west of the Caltrain line are concentrated north Avenue. Limited recreational uses are located in the study area and consist of an open space Irish Town Greens on Armour Avenue, a play lot at Cypress and Pi Drago Park near Gateway Boulevard, and a play lot at City Hall on Mill Specific Plan boundaries to the west and north are residential n commercial and research and development uses, and residences and south. Residences are typically not a source of substantial operational Cypress/Pine include outdoor playgrounds that intermittently res Downtown and business commercial uses do not typically require h would be a substantial source of operational noise, other than h (HVAC) systems, which are typically shielded. Occasional nuisanc surrounding surface parking lots, such as loud music or car alar industrial uses may require machinery that generates noise that General Plan Noise Element identifies the industrial land uses s potential to result in noise levels that exceed 60 dBA CNEL at a Existing Noise Levels Noise measurements conducted during preparation of the General P much of the City experiences noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CN identifies most of the study area west of US-101 as having noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL or less. Noise South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise levels east of Linden Avenue are 65 dBA CNEL and above, areas along US-101 exceed 70 dBA CNEL, and areas between US-101 and the Caltrain line exceed 75 dBA CNEL. Transportation Noise Sources Aviation The General Plan Noise Element identifies San Francisco Internat source in some areas of the City. The study area is located appr However, due to distance and the orientation of the airport runways, t the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the SFIA (C/CAG 2012). Roadways The South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element identifies US-101 as a major noise source in the City. This freeway traverses the study area from north to south railroad line. Major thoroughfares through the study area also c Airport Boulevard, South Airport Boulevard, Baden Avenue, and Ga noise levels were modeled using standard noise modeling equations prediction model. This model takes into account traffic volumes, configuration. It is conservative and does not take into account noise barriers along the freeways. Table 4.6-2 (Existing Roadway Noise Levels) shows the existing noise levels generated by select roadways in the study area. Selected road the Specific Plan is projected to result in a future increase of roadway, only the segment with the greatest traffic volume was a4.6-3 (Existing Freeway Noise Contours), noise levels along major roadwa from 59 dBA CNEL to 71 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the roadway centerline. According to the California Department of Health, roadway noise levels up to 60 d with single-family residences, noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL are nor residences, and noise levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are normally compatible development. As shown in Table 4.6-2, noise levels in the study area currently exceed the normally compatible noise standards for single-family residences. Noise levels along exceed the normally compatible noise standards for multifamily r considered normally compatible with civic and commercial uses. Roadway noise level contours for existing traffic volumes on US-101 are shown in Table 4.6-3. As shown in Table 4.6-3, single-family residences within 0.69 mile of the freeway may excess of 60 dBA CNEL. Multifamily residences may be exposed to nois normally acceptable standard of 65 dBA CNEL within 0.33 mile of the freeway. Civic and commercial uses within approximately one city block from the freeway may be 70 dBA CNEL. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Table 4.6-2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Existing Ambient Noise Level Segment Existing ADT (dBA CNEL) Airport Blvd between Baden Ave and San Mateo Ave/So. Airport Blvd 21,660 71 South Airport Blvd between Airport Blvd/ Produce Ave and Gateway Blvd 20,030 68 Baden Ave between Airport Blvd and Linden Ave 14,410 63 Gateway Blvd between E. Grand Ave and So. Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave 13,510 67 Grand Ave between Airport Blvd and US-101 14,410 63 E. Grand Ave between US-101 and Dubuque Ave 20,890 69 Industrial Way south of Grand Ave 6,520 60 Linden Ave between Grand Ave and Baden Ave 8,920 61 Miller Ave between Airport Blvd and Linden Ave 6,440 59 Produce Ave south of San Mateo Ave/ So. Airport Blvd 25,020 69 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, South San Francisco Station Area Land Use Plan: EIR Transportati (February 14, 2014) (see Appendix D for noise model assumptions and output). Peak hour PM volumes are assumed to be 10 percent of total daily trips. Table 4.6-3 Existing Freeway Noise Contours Distance from Freeway Centerline (miles) Roadway Segment 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL US-101/I-380 Junction to Produce/Airport 0.17 0.36 0.77 1.66 US-101Produce/Airport to Grand Ave 0.16 0.35 0.75 1.62 US-101Grand Ave to Oyster Point Blvd 0.16 0.36 0.77 1.65 SOURCE: Atkins (2013), based on traffic data provided by California Depa 2012 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System (2012) and California Department of Transportation, 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highways System (2013). Railroads The Southern Pacific Railroad line traverses the study area justUS-101. Caltrain runs sixty-eight commuter trains each day through South San Francisco, and Southe line. According to the Noise Element, since the line runs adjace101 and is generally surrounded by industrial and commercial land uses, rail operations have a n South San Francisco. Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLU) are land uses that may be subje excessive noise. The General Plan Noise Element defines NSLU as hospitals. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not uals would be exposed to noise, such as a specific residence. Noise sensitive land uses a of the study area, including residences, public and private scho South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise of US-101 freeway and east of the freeway land uses are predominantly com which are not noise sensitive. Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses Land uses in which groundborne vibration could potentially inter as resear affected by the groundborne vibration. There is the potential fo exist in the commercial and industrial land uses. In addition, t groundborne vibrations in excess of 100 feet from the tracks, ho sensitive land uses within the study area that are located within 100 of groundborne vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nat residents. 4.6.2Regulatory Framework Federal Federal Highway Administration Standards CFR Title 23, Part 772, sets procedures for the abatement of hig noise. Title 23 is implemented by the Department of Transportation F (FHWA). The purpose of this regulation is to provide procedures for measures to help protect the public health and welfare, to suppl establish requirements for information to be given to local offi highways. All highway projects which are developed in conformanc to be in conformance with the Department of Transportation FHWA establishes 67 dBA as the worst-case hourly average noise level stan projects to land uses including residences, recreational uses, hotels Chapter 1, Part 772, Section 772.19). Federal Transit Administration Standards and Federal Railroad Admin Standards Although the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards are transit projects, the impact assessment procedures and criteria Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (May 2006) are routinely used jurisdictions. The FTA and Federal Railroad Administration have impacts of groundborne vibration associated with rail projects, jurisdictions to other types of projects. The FTA measure of the conventional sensitive structures from groundborne vibration is PPV). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise State California Noise Control Act of 1973 The California Noise Control Act of 1973, California Health and 46080, finds that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public heal certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychologic there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in urb California Noise Control Act declares that the State of Californ health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, a the state to provide an environment for all Californians free fr welfare. California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regula24) Title 24 establishes an interior noise standard of 45 dBA for multifam requires noise insulation of new multifamily dwellings constructed within 2003). California Department of Health Services Guidelines The California Department of Health Services has published guide elements that outlines recommendations to minimize the exposure noise, including noise compatibility standards. These guidelines General Plan Guidelines Appendix C (Guidelines for the Preparati of the General Plan) (OPR 2003). The recommended noise-compatibilit Table 4.6-4 (Noise Compatibility Guidelines). These guidelines apply to a individual noise sources. The guidelines also provide adjustment arrive at noise- factor for noisy urban residential communities near busy roads i measured noise levels would be reduced by 5 dBA CNEL before comparis guidelines. Essentially the adjustment factors indicate that noise co higher than recommended in Table 4.6-4 are appropriate in urban residential communities due to existing noise levels. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Table 4.6-4 Noise Compatibility Guidelines Community Noise Exposure L or CNEL, dBA dn Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable ResidentialSingle family, Duplex, Mobile Home 5060 5570 7075 7585 ResidentialMultifamily 5065 6070 7075 7585 Transient Lodging, Motels, Hotels 5065 6070 7080 8085 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 5070 6070 7080 8085 Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 5070 NA 6585 Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 5075 NA 7085 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 5070 NA 67.575 72.585 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 5075 NA 7080 8085 Office Buildings, Business Commercial, Professional 5070 67.577.5 7585 NA Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 5075 7080 8085 NA SOURCE: State of California General Plan Guidelines (2003), Appendix C (Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element NORMALLY ACCEPTABLESpecified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption th conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requir CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLENew construction or development should be undertaken only after reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLENew construction or development should be discouraged. If new co proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirementsincluded in the design. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLENew construction or development clearly should not be undertaken Local City of South San Francisco General Plan The Noise Element of City and makes recommendations to minimize noise exposure. Applicable Noise Ele Policy 9-I-6 Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obt services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical design of mitigation measures. Policy 9-I-7 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all n development subject to noise generators producing noise levels gre 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of sound walls, where practical. Policy 9-I-8 Require the control of noise at source through site design, bui landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new dev deemed to be noise generators. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise The Noise Element includes the San Mateo Airport Land Use Commis standards for review of development in noise impacted areas. The compatibility standards are specifically applicable to development with the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of airport. The noise compatibility standards are listed in Table 4.6-5 (Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas). Table 4.6-5 Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas Land Use CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria Less than 65 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Residential 65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements annoise insulation as needed Over 70 Development should not be undertaken Less than 70 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Commercial 70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements an Over 80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be pro Less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Industrial 75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements an needed Over 85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be pro Less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Open Space Over 75 Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999). City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The City of South San Francisco has adopted a Noise Ordinance (S8.32), which identifies ambient baseline noise levels, noise standards for various sources, sp and variances for sources of noise within the City. The noise le levels for different land use categories. SSFMC Section 8.32.030 specific zones and land uses within the City (see Table 4.6-6 [City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standard]). The noise standards apply to all noise sources with the ex vehicle horns and utility and emergency vehicles. Per Section 8.32.050(d) of the SSFMC, construction activities ar hours of eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hou Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the follo No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exc 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on th shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 possible. The noise level at any point outside the property plane of the p South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Table 4.6-6 City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standard Noise Land Use Category Time Period Level (dB) 10:00 7:00 50 PMAM R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any single-family or duplex residential in a specific plan district 7:00 10:00 60 AMPM 10:00 7:00 55 PMAM R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-family residential or mixed residential/commercial in any specif plan district 7:00 10:00 65 AMPM 10:00 7:00 60 PMAM C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or an plan district 7:00 10:00 65 AMPM M-1, P-I Anytime 70 SOURCE: City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.030. Per SSFMC Section 8.32.080, the operation of sound-amplifying eq hours of 8:00 and 8:00 . No operation of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purpos AMPM shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. The operation o noncommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall occur AM and 8:00 . PM 4.6.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Implementation of the proposed project could result in the intro City noise standards. The primary sources of noise associated wi construction activities within the study area and project-related traffic volumes associated with operation of the proposed project. Secondary sources of noise would includ HVAC units) and increased human activity throughout the study ar generated by these activities and other sources were quantitativ applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. Aside from noise levels, groundborne vibration would also be gen the proposed project by various pieces of construction equipment levels generated by construction equipment were quantitatively e thresholds of significance. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were estimated based on data published Agency (USEPA). Potential noise levels are identified for on- and off-site noise, including hotels and sensitive research facilities. The USEPA has compiled data regarding the noise-generating chara activities. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with dista approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 80 dBA at receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Roadway Noise Levels Roadway noise levels were calculated for various locations arounRD- 77-108 model and traffic volumes from the project traffic study. T rates) utilized in the FHWA Model were modified to reflect avera California by Caltrans. Traffic volumes used in the FHWA model a study, which is provided in Appendix D and summarized in Section 4.10 (Transportation/Traffic) of this document. As part of the proposed project, there were two scenarios analy configuration of the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection lane would remain, and in the second scenario the westbound lane case noise levels (that would result from removal of the west-bo Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activit estimated by data published by the City/County Association of Go. Potential vibration levels are identified for on- and off-site l including hotels and sensitive research facilities. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have noise if it would do any of the following: Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise leve established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or app Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne noise levels Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise leve levels existing without the project Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambien vicinity above levels existing without the project If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in the e working in the study area to excessive noise levels If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in the exposu the study area to excessive noise levels The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which temporary and dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise doubling of loudness. Based on this information, a 3 dBA CNEL in significant. The City of South San Francisco has implemented Land Use noise c noise impacted areas. With the high volume roadways, the US-101 freeway, and the rail line bisecting the study area, the noise compatibility standards are an appropriate The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundbo associated with human annoyance would be significant if the prop the vibration level that is considered by the Federal Transit Admin there are an infrequent number of events per day (as described i Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration]). Groundborne vibration i vibration sensitive equipment would be significant if the propos Consistency Analysis The Specific Plan is intended to facilitate and guide the City o efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtow connectivity to the Downtown and Caltrain station, encourage lon supportive and provide accessibility for all community members. City and makes recommendations to minimize noise exposure. The Specific Plan focuses on five areas change: Grand Avenue; transit-oriented Downtown development; eas district; Caltrain station platform extension and Grand Avenue e improvements. Four core areas are identified in the proposed lan Residential Core, the Downtown Transit Core, the Grand Avenue Co Core, which is located immediately adjacent to the east of the C Specific Plan would increase residential and commercial density increase exposure to higher levels of transit noise. However, as analysis below, noise exposure would be mitigated through acoust and City exposure limits. Therefore the implementation of the Sp General Plan Noise Element. Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project, if located within an airport land u has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or publ the exposure of people residing or working in the study area to levels? The study area is located approximately 0.75 mile from the SFIA. the airport runways, the study area is not located within the 65 dBA (C/CAG 2012). Noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and below are considered co 1999, Noise Element). Therefore, the City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise proposed project would not expose people residing or working in from aircraft. Therefore, there would be , and no further analysis is required in this EIR. Threshold Would the project, if located within the vicinity of a exposure of people residing or working in the study area to exce The study area is not located within the vicinity of a private a , and no further analysis is required in this EIR. Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project result in the exposure of persons to excess of standards established in the local general plan or noi applicable standards of other agencies? Impact 4.6-1 Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in the ex to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards establis local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards o agencies. This is considered a potentially significant impact. H implementation of mitigation would reduce the impact from operat noise sources to a level. The implementation of the Specific Plan would have the potential established standards by developing new stationary sources of no throughout the study area, and by generating additional vehicula uses include mixed-use commercial and general commercial, reside industrial uses. This section addresses the potential for sensit to excessive noise levels from roadways and other noise sources. that would occur as a result of increased traffic on roadways is4.6-4. Operational Noise Sources Operational noise sources would be similar to existing condition Plan because land uses would be similar, including the operation, hotel, and industrial uses. However, development intensity would increase w transit-oriented mixed-use development. The Specific Plan seeks to create a pedestrian-, bicycle-, and transit-friendly environment that would result in the placement proximity to commercial land uses. Therefore, noise levels would study area. New commercial and hotel development pursuant to the Specific Pl dBA with no special insulation requirements. Noise sources from commercial u unloading, parking lot noise, and mechanical equipment (HVAC uni. Parking lots could also generate noise levels that exceed noise level limits from vehicle horns a distance from these sources to sensitive receptors. However, noi South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise would be intermittent and would not occur at the same time and l would be separate and in most cases would not adversely affect t However, commercial land uses could also generate noise levels from HV equipment that exceeds the exterior and interior residential and systems associated with new buildings in the study area could re 50 and 65 dBA L at 50 feet from the equipment. The 24-hour CNEL noise levels are about 6.7 dBA eq greater than 24-hour L measurements. This means that the HVAC equipment installed unde eq development could generate noise levels that average between 57 if equipment is operating unshielded and constantly over 24 hours. At these u commercial land uses and would result in potentially significant impacts. Howeve noise limits. Intermittent or temporary neighborhood noise from amplified musi maintenance, and stand-by power generators are disturbing to res control. Nuisance noise impacts are more likely to occur in more residences are closer together and neighbors are more likely to music. The Specific Plan would accommodate intensified mixed-use increase in residential development in the study area could resu However, these noises would be generally temporary and intermitt would be required to comply with the exterior noise standards in enforced by the office and/or Police Department. Violations of the Noise Ordinance are a misdemeanor and are punishable by fees and/or ja from residential development would not result in a significant i Exposure to Traffic Noise Acoustical calculations were performed for existing plus project in the area most affected by the Specific Plan using standard no FHWA noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The modeling calculations considered the posted vehicle speed, average daily traffic volume, and the estimated v urface, site propagation conditions. The future scenario is base the traffic analysis prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers (A US-101 were estimated based on data from Caltrans (2014). This analysi exposure of people to traffic noise as a result of the project. increase traffic noise is addressed under Impact 4.6-4. The Specific Plan proposes intensified commercial, residential an area roadways. New development and redevelopment could place new development and commercial development along major roadways and sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the dBA for residential and 70 dBA for commercial land uses. As discussed in greater detail under Impact 4.6-4, traffic noise levels on surface roads in the study area with project implementation wouldA City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise CNEL. Freeway noise levels would have the potential to exceed 6075 mile of a freeway, 65 dBA CNEL within 0.35 mile, and 70 dBA CNEL within 0. potentially significant impact associated with exposure to traffic noise. Railroad Noise The Union Pacific Railroad line runs adjacent to US-101 through high average noise levels in the immediate vicinity. Caltrain al Francisco along this line. The proposed project would not cause study area, but is being implemented in part to increase ridersh existing Caltrain station is located in the study area, east of US-101 north of E. Grand Avenue. The commuter trains occupy the same line as the freight trains. Acco from rail lines range from 80 dBA to 85 dBA at 50 feet depending train. When approaching the station, typically a warning horn will around 90 dBA at 50 feet. Therefore, anticipated commercial and study area could expose sensitive receptors to noise levels that excee noise standards established by the City (65 dBA residential and development proposed within a noise contour which exceeds the limits result in a potentially significant impact. Audible warnings when approaching the train station and where re continue to be a source of intermittent noise in the study area. would increase exposure to these events by increasing developmen development along the rail line would have the potential to expo of the City Combined Roadway and Railroad Noise There are four sources of transportation noise that could impact commercial development within the study area. Noise impacts woul to US-101, Gateway Boulevard, South Airport Boulevard, and the commuter/f discussed below under Impact 4.6-4, traffic noise would increase up to 71 dBA CNEL, at 50 feet from the any roadway centerline. The noise levels of 71 dBA CNEL woul Boulevard. Railroad noise levels are anticipated at 80 to 85 dBA up t50 feet from the rail line. Combining street traffic noise and rail noise would result in a at 50 feet from the railroad. With a noise level of 85 dBA CNEL at 50 distance alone, the commercial threshold of 70 dBA would not be achieved until 160 feet from the centerline of the railroad tracks and the residential threshold 65 dBA would not be achieved until approximately 300 feet from the railroad tracks. New commercial and residential development under the proposed Specific Plan may be located within 300 feet of the rail line and/or US-101; therefore, exterior noise thresholds may be exceeded. Additionally, interior noise l 45 dBA CNEL with the incorporation of standard building practices. impact would occur. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Summary The proposed project has the potential to expose new development transportation noise levels that exceed the City normally acceptable compatibility standards. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementa4.6-1 through MM4.6-3 would reduce this impact to . HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for non- residential development, the applicant shall submit a design pla the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noi control measures may include, but are not limited to, the selection of setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical louvers. Site-Specific Acoustic AnalysisNonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exteriodBA CNEL, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to determine appropr such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced to be below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that w exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Meas ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to,d nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construct Site-Specific Acoustic AnalysisMultifamily Residences. Prior to the approval of building permits for the following uses, an acoustical analysis shall be levels due to exterior noise sources shall be below 45 dBA CNEL: Multifamily residences where exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA contours identified in the General Plan Noise Element project a CNEL betw 70 dBA Multifamily residential units that are located within the same b development Multifamily residential units located near a structure requiring Building plans shall be available during design review and shall calculation of noise attenuation for habitable rooms. For these windows to be able to remain closed to ensure that interior nois of 45 dBA CNEL. Consequently, based on the results of the interior acous design for buildings in these areas may need to include a ventila provide a habitable interior environment with the windows closed multifamily residences on properties where train horns and railr audible, the acoustical analysis shall ensure that interior nois exceed the Interior Noise Standards in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.040. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Threshold Would the project result in the exposure of persons to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact 4.6-2 Construction of the proposed project would result in the e persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered a potentially signi impact. However, implementation of mitigation would reduce this to a level. The main concerns related to groundborne vibration are annoyance buildings. Vibration-sensitive instruments and operations can also be disru Potential vibration-sensitive uses in the proposed study area ma research laboratory equipment. These land uses are located throughout area. The primary sources of vibration within the project vicini and commuter rail and construction activities. Because the propo Specific Plan would be similar to existing land uses, vibration be substantially different from existing conditions. Construction activities that would occur under the proposed proj low levels of groundborne vibration. Table 4.6-7 (Vibration Sour identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construct within the study area during construction. Based on the informat4.6-7, vibration levels could reach as high as approximately 87 VdB within 25 feet of Construction activities occurring under the proposed project would h nearest sensitive receptors where construction staging would occ Table 4.6-7 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Approximate VdB at 25 feet Large Bulldozer 87 Caisson Drilling 87 Loaded Trucks 86 Jackhammer 79 Small Bulldozer 58 SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment (FTA), Transit Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006). Construction within approximately 25 feet of existing sensitive With attenuation due to distance, construction activities occurring 3 construction site would not exceed 85 VdB. As there is the potential for cons 25 feet of existing sensitive receptors, there is the potential fo significant without mitigation. This is considered a potentially implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-4 would reduce this impact to . South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the cons contractor shall implement the following measures during constru a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks activities, written notification to all residential units and no of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date generating construction activities. b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be loca possible. c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving th Impact 4.6-3 Operation of the proposed project would result in t to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne levels. This is considered a potentially significant impact. How implementation of mitigation would reduce this impact to a level. An existing additional potential source of groundborne vibration bisects the study area. The FTA provides thresholds for land use vibration impacts from a commuter railroad (FTA 2006). For Categ equipment), the disturbance criteria for frequent events is 65 VdB. For Cate and buildings where people normally sleep), the disturbance crite for Category 3 land uses (institutional land uses) is 75 VdB. The p accommodate Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 land uses throug concentrated Category 2 land uses close to the rail lines. According to the FTA (FTA 2006), light rail vehicles result in grou less than 10 feet from the rail line and freight trains result in g approximately 50 feet from the rail line. The commuter line would have th disturbance criteria for Category 1 uses up to 115 feet from the rail 2 uses, and up to 55 feet for Category 3 uses. The freight line woul disturbances for criteria for Category 1 at greater than 300 feet from Category 2 uses, and up to 150 feet for Category 3 uses. Mixed-use 0.25 mile of the rail line, which could include Category 1, 2, or 3 has the potential to locate new land uses within the applicable lines. New development that is proposed within the screening dis determine vibration-sensitive impacts. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, im MM4.6-5 would reduce this impact to . Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (resid normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-19 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specif groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project appl City prior to receiving a building permit. Threshold Would the project result in a substantial permanent in in the project vicinity above levels existing without the projec Impact 4.6-4 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a s permanent increase in ambient noise levels as a result of increa in the project vicinity above levels existing without the projec considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of m would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant lev Therefore, the increase in traffic noise would be a impact. This section addresses the potential for implementation of the S ambient noise levels as a result of increased traffic noise. The with project implementation to result in increases that would ex addressed under Impact 4.6-1. The primary way in which implementation of the Specific Plan woul and in the surrounding vicinity is by increasing traffic. Acoust traffic volumes along roadway segments most affected by the proj equations adapted from the FHWA noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Most affected segments include those where implementation of the project would 1,000 peak hour trips. The modeling calculations considered the traffic volume, and the estimated vehicle mix, and, as discussed the study area with the removal of the west-bound turn lane from and Grand Avenue. Table 4.6-8 (Noise Levels With Project, CNEL) shows that future noise levin the study area) range from 61 to 71 dBA CNEL at a distance of 50 feet from the r traffic noise of 3 dBA CNEL or more is considered significant because a 3 dBA change t increment that is perceivable by most receivers. The addition of project t in noise levels of up to 3 dBA for two roadway segments in the s impacts associated with increases in traffic noise are considered signi South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-20 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Table 4.6-8 Noise Levels With Project, CNEL Existing Project Change Ambient Segment Noise Level in Noise Significant? Noise Level (dBA CNEL) Level (dBA CNEL) Airport Blvd north of Baden Avenue 69 70 1 No Airport Blvd between Baden Ave and San Mateo Ave/So. Airport Blvd 71 70 -1 No South Airport Blvd between Airport Blvd/ Produce Ave and Gateway Blvd 68 71 3 Yes Baden Ave between Airport Blvd and Linden Ave 63 64 1 No Gateway Blvd between E Grand Ave and S Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave 67 70 3 Yes E Grand Ave between US-101 and Dubuque Ave 69 69 0 No Industrial Way south of Grand Ave 60 61 1 No Linden Ave between Grand Ave and Baden Ave 61 62 1 No Miller Ave between Airport Blvd and Linden Ave 59 61 2 No Produce Ave south of San Mateo Ave/ S Airport Blvd 69 70 1 No SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, South San Francisco Station Area Land Use Plan: EIR TransportatiAnalysis assumptions (February 14, 2014) (see Appendix D for noise model assumptions and output). Peak hour PM volumes are assumed to be 10 percent of total daily trips. Typical sound mitigation for traffic noise consists of walls or the sensitive receptors behind the barrier. However, the feasibi requirements for driveways, presence of local cross streets, und the study area, and safety considerations. The study area is cur streets currently exist along Gateway Boulevard and South Airpor ineffective on the impacted segments in the study area due to ne accommodate existing and potential new driveways or cross-street surface streets inhibit the creation of a pedestrian-friendly st public spaces from the public view and limiting pedestrian acces oriented development area. Therefore, installation of a noise wa feasible. Where new and complete redevelopment is planned, noise barriers may be feasible and should be considered where appropri measures available to reduce roadway noise besides limiting/redu which would contradict the TOD goals of the Specific Plan. Becau available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-21 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Threshold Would the project result in a substantial temporary or noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing witho Impact 4.6-5 The proposed project would not result in a substantial tem periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinit existing without the project. This would be a impact. As described in the Initial Study for the proposed project (Appe future development would result in temporary increases in noise level construction equipment. Construction of land uses accommodated b place all at once, and would be spread throughout the study area exposed to construction noise at any given time. Under SSFMC Sec8.32.050(d), construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 to 8:00 on weekdays, 9:00 to 8:00 on AMPMAMPM Saturdays, and 10:00 to 6:00 on Sundays and holidays, or as authorized by the construction AMPM permit. Construction noise that occurs during these hours is exemp are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and sensitive to exterior noise. Consequently, the City considers im during these hours to be less than significant. Future construct required to comply with all applicable City ordinances, includin impacts related to construction noise would be , and no mitigation is required. 4.6.4Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative noise impa as represented by full build- including development of the cumulative projects as identified in Table 3-2 (Cumulative ProjectsPlanned East of 101 Development by 2035) of the Project Description. The City is largely built out, and cumu development of vacant parcels and intensified redevelopment of ian emphasis on TOD. Threshold Would the project result in the exposure of persons to excess of standards established in the local general plan or noi applicable standards of other agencies? The project would result in an increase in the ambient noise lev and increased human activity throughout the study area. However, would be similar to the existing noise environment and impacts w with the incorporation of the above measures MM4.6-1, MM4.6-2, and MM4.6-3. Therefore, the cumulative impact from operational noise sources would not be cu cumulative impact would be . South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-22 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Threshold Would the project result in a substantial permanent in in the project vicinity above levels existing without the projec Buildout of the Specific Plan, along with future regional growth within the project vicinity would result in increases in traffic noise. The potential noise impacts that would result from projec Impact 4.6-4. As shown in Table 4.6-8, noise levels along two surface roadways in the study area wo exceed the normally acceptable noise compatibility standards. In add would be anticipated from regional growth, especially along US-1 exceed the standards, a cumulative impact would be anticipated w included. Operation of the rail line (both commuter and freight)US-101 freeway would also contribute to exposure to excessive noise levels. The new TOD Zo developed with implementation of the Specific Plan; therefore, i would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a si permanent increases in traffic and railroad noise. As discussed 4.6-4, there are no mitigation measures available to reduce roadway noise besides li traffic, which would contradict the TOD goals of the Specific Pl mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-sig . Threshold Would the project result in the exposure of persons to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Cumulative development in the study area and surrounding area is people to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration a nature of vibration impacts and the fact that all construction w same location. Therefore, the cumulative impact from excessive g . 4.6.5References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1998. Technical Noise SupplementA Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, October. . 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9201, February 20. . 2008. Noise Study Report Template, February. . 2012. 2011 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State . . 2013. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highways System. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Appendix C (Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Eleme General Plan). City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International, October. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.6-23 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.6 Noise Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment Transit Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment, May. Fehr & Peers. 2014. South San Francisco Caltrain Station Area Plan EIR. Traffic Counts, April 14. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . n.d. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?frames=on (accessed March 7, 2010). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.6-24 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing 4.7POPULATION/HOUSING This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff implementation of the proposed project. Some comments were recei preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project relating t of existing housing. Data used to prepare this section were taken from the United Sta the California Department of Finance (CDOF), the Association of City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999), the City of Sou the General Plan (2009), and the South San Francisco Downtown St Plan) (BMS Design Group 2014). Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are prov Section 4.7.5 (References). 4.7.1Environmental Setting The Specific Plan area (study area) is located in the City of So the north/south US-101 and Interstate 280 (I-280) freeways on th Additionally, two fixed rail lines serve the City: BART and Caltrain. United States 2000 Census The United States Census Bureau provides population and housing 10 National years for the purpose of counting the population and housing units for the entire United States. While provide the population counts that determine how seats in the U. apportioned, the Census data is also the basis for most demograp compiled from U.S. household surveys, are provided for the natio each individual city. Because the latest Census is four years ol existing conditions as they were in 2010. California Department of Finance (CDOF) The Demographic Research Unit of the CDOF is designated as the s data for State planning and budgeting. Estimated city and county vacancies, average household size, and components of population basis. Consequently, the CDOF typically contains the most curren which are used throughout this section wherever feasible. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) South San Francisco is located within the County of San Mateo, w of ABAG, the lead planning agency for the Bay Area. ABAG consist Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Sa City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing San Francisco Bay Area by leading the region in advocacy, collab primary functions is to forecast population, housing, and employ years and publishes them as projections, which assess realistic growth in the region while r demographics and local policies that promote more compact in-fil The latest regional projections are from 2009. Population According to the U.S. Census in 2010 the City of South San Franc decennial census population matches the 2010 population estimate4.7-1 (Population: City of South San Francisco, 198020 population over the past three decades, including the 1990, 2000 recent 2013 CDOF population estimate. Table 4.7-1 Population: City of South San Francisco, 19802010 Year Population Increase Average Annual Growth(persons/year) Average Annual Growth Rate 1980 49,393 1990 54,312 9.05% 492 0.99% 2000 60,552 11.48% 624 1.14% 2010 63,632 5.08% 308 0.05% 2013 65,127 2.35% 150 0.23% SOURCES: California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for California Counties and Cities: January 1, 1976 through January 1, 1980 (1981), http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/1971-80/counties- cities/#tab76to80; California Department of Finance, E-4 Revised Historical City, County and State Population Estimates2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts (Sacramento, California, March 2002), http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/1991-2000/; California Department of Finance, E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 20012010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts (Sacramento, California, November 2012), http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-4/2001-10/view.php; California Department of Finance, E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2012 and 2013 (May 1, 2013), http://www.dof.ca.gov/Research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php. According to the CDOF data noted in Table 4.7- residents. This represents a 1.5 increase over the CDOF estimated 2 residents. The CDOF data also demonstrates that the population i residents, or approximately 32 percent, between 1980 and 2013. T growth rate of approximately 0.96 percent and an increase of about 478 resid 2013 period. approximately 8.8 (719,729 residents). Currently South San Francisco is the fifth most populated city i South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing 8.8 EIR, 2010 Census data are used. Housing As shown in Table 4.7-2 (Housing Units: City of South San Francisco, 20002010), the 2000 Census reported that the City had a housing inventory of 20,138 housing y 1,676 housing units, as the City had a 2010 housing inventory of 21,814 housing units. Table 4.7-2 Housing Units: City of South San Francisco, 20002010 Housing Type Year Total Number of Units Occupied Units Single Family Multifamily Mobile Homes/Other 2000 14,300 5,429 409 20,138 19,677 2010 13,046 5,629 343 21,814 20,938 SOURCE: California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the2009, with 2000 Benchmark (Sacramento, California, May 2009). The 2010 approximate percentage breakdown for housing by type in 60 percent single-family 26 percent multifamily 1.5 percent mobile homes/other 96 percent of total housing units are occupied Vacancy Rates The vacancy rates and affordability of the housing stock are als high prices in the housing market or significant mismatches betw housing. Conversely, low vacancy rates usually indicate high dem market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of mar the context of all the characteristics of the local and regional appropriate price competition and consumer choice), generally ra family units and from 3 to 5 percent for multifamily units. As sho4.7-3 (Total Housing Units, Households, and Population: City of South San Francisco, 200 rate increased from 2.3 percent in 2000 to 4.0 percent in 2010, ten-year period. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) The City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element out Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) need for the City. The City impl adequate supply of land to meet its 2007 and 2014 ABAG RHNA of 1 income units, 268 low-income units, 315 moderate-income units, a City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing covers the 20072014 planning period. The RHNA includes calculated housing needs on population projections, existing housing stock, and calculate Table 4.7-3 Total Housing Units, Households, and Population: City of South S Francisco, 20002010 Census Total Number Occupied Units Percent Average Persons Population Year of Units (Households) Vacant Per Household 2000 20,138 19,677 2.3 60,552 3.05 2010 21,814 20,938 4.0 63,632 3.01 SOURCES: California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit, St 2 (Housing Units, Households, and Vacant Units: 2000 and 2010 Incorporated Cities http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web& Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2Fresearch%2Fdemographic%2Fstate_census_data_cen F2010Census_Table2_RedistrictingFile.xls&ei=IeCMUum2DNay4APfq4HwAQ&usg=AF YbCA&bvm=bv.56643336,d.dmg; California Department of Finance, Demographics Research Unit, St 1 (Total Population: 2000 and 2010 Incorporated Cities by County in California) (generated March 8, 2011), http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web& Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2Fresearch%2Fdemographic%2Fstate_census_data_center%2Fcensu F2010Census_Table1_RedistrictingFile.xls&ei=S_-LUuvGE7jG4AOc9oCACA&usg=AFQjCNF8reQH3_uwjIBbmAIhnPFKtaa MEQ&bvm=bv.56643336,d.dmg. Table 4.7-4 (RHNA Needs by Income Category: City of South San Francisco, 2014) presents the latest adopted RHNA calculated housing need assigned to the City planning period, a total of Table 4.7-4 RHNA Needs by Income Category: City of South San Francisco, 20072014 Income Category RHNA-Identified Need Very Low 373 Low 268 Moderate 315 Upper 679 Total 1,635 SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element (June 24, 2009), RHNA http://www.ssf.net/ DocumentCenter/Home/View/906 (accessed November 14, 2013). Households A household is defined by the CDOF and the Census as a group of household differs from a housing (or dwelling) unit because the number o occupied and vacant housing units. It is important to note that households. A portion lives in group quarters, such as board and South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing As shown in Table 4.7-3, the average household size in the City of South San Francisc 3.05 pph in 2000 to 2.96 pph in 2013. Implementation of the proposed Spec add 1,435 housing units between 2014 and 2035. Employment According to data from the California Employment Development Dep San Francisco currently (November 2013) has a labor force of approximately 33,600 persons and unemployment in the City stands at 6.6 percent of the labor force (2,200 people). Table 4.7-5 (Current and Future Employment: City of South San Francisco a 2025) presents the current and projected (estimated) employment from the ABAG 2007 South San Francisco Market Information projec projections. The ABAG estimate for 2010 employment in the City w more workers than the 2013 EDD employment estimate for the City. numbers are estimates, so it is reasonable to conclude that the somewhere in the range between the low estimate (33,600 workers) and the high estimate (44,490 workers), particularly given the downturn in the economy in rece Table 4.7-5 Current and Future Employment: City of South San Francisco and t ABAG Region, 20052025 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 South San Francisco 42,080 44,490 46,340 49,970 53,380 ABAG Region 3,225,100 3,410,300 3,663,700 3,962,800 4,264,600 SOURCES: Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Projections 2007: Regional Projections (2007); Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Projections 2009: Regional Projections (2009). According to the employment growth forecast presented in Table 4.7-5, the number of workers in South San Francisco is projected to grow by 11,300 employees between 2005 annual increase of 1.34 percent, or about 565 workers per year. ABAG region is projected to grow by 1,009,500 workers between 2005 average annual increase of 1.5 percent or about 50,475 workers p 4.7.2Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to population and housi State California State Housing Law Program The State Housing Law (SHL) Program, which is implemented by the and Community Development (HCD), was established to assure the a City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing and uniform statewide code enforcement; to protect the health, s and occupants of housing and buildings accessory thereto. To ful may propose legislation and regulations. The program oversees th and code enforcement by a city, county, city and county building fire district. The SHL Program develops statewide building stand motels, lodging houses, apartments, dwellings, and buildings acc are published in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, known as the California Building Standards Code. The SHL Program adopts regulations for maintenance, alteration, moving, and demolition of existing hotels, motels, l buildings accessory thereto. The regulations are published in th1. respective Councils of Governments (COG) based on CDOF populatio population forecasts used to prepare regional transportation pla Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), then develops a Regi tewide housing need to cities and counties within the region. Refer to the discussion below under ABAG for the RHNA fo Housing Element Law The Housing Element Law requires local governments to adequately projected housing needs, including their share of the regional h required to include quantification and a descriptive analysis of to address identified needs. Regional Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) ABAG, which is the designated metropolitan planning organization (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, S the official comprehensive plannin strengthen cooperation and coordination among local governments, environmental, and economic issues that transcend local borders. zoning to ensure there is an adequate supply of land to meet its 2 units including 373 very-low-income units, 268 low-income units, above-moderate-income units. This most recent RHNA was adopt General Plan Housing Element and covers the 20072014 planning period. The population and household forecasts for the City of South San ABAG region (as prepared in 2009 by ABAG) are provided in Table Household Forecast). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing Table 4.7-6 ABAG Population and Household Forecast 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 South San Francisco Population 63,400 66,600 69,200 71,500 73,900 76,200 Households 20,130 21,660 22,530 23,380 24,240 25,050 San Mateo County Population 719,729747,637747,563766,521803,288833,209 Households 1,039,201 1,071,810 1,088,375 1,102,370 1,110,659 1,118,490 ABAG Region Population 7,341,700 7,677,500 8,018,000 8,364,900 8,719,300 9,073,700 Households 2,667,340 2,784,690 2,911,000 3,039,910 3,171,940 3,302,780 SOURCE: Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Projections 2009: Regional Projections (2009). Local General Plan Housing Element (2009) The General Plan Housing Element (2009) 2014 planning period. The City has established the Housing Eleme and priorities, as well as its obligations under State Housing l Element of the General Plan relevant to the Specific Plan are pr Goal 1 Promote the provision of housing by both the private and public s income groups in the community Policy 1-1 Ensure adequate supply of land to meet its 2007 to 2014 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 373 very low income units, 315 moderate low income units, and 679 above moderate units. Policy 1-2 Continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requiring new residential development over four units to provide a minimum of twenty percent low- and moderate- income housing. Policy 1-3 Investigate new sources of funding for the affordable housing programs. Policy 1-5 Promote construction of the lower cost units by providing incentives and encouraging mixed use projects, second units, density bonuses, loft-style units, and manufacturing housing. Policy 1-6 Review and continue to implement the Density Bonus Ordinance Policy 1-7 Encourage a mix of residential, commercial and office uses in the areas designated as Downtown Commercial, mixed Community Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing Business Commercial and High Density Residential, mixed Business Commercial, and Medium Density Residential in the General Plan. Policy 1-9 Maximize opportunities for residential development, through infill and redevelopment of underutilized sites, without impacting existing neighborhoods or creating conflicts with industrial operations. Goal 5 Support the development of an adequate supply of safe, decent a housing for groups with special housing needs Policy 5-1 Continue to give special attention in housing programs to the needs of special groups, including the disabled, large families, the elderly, and families with low income. Policy 5-2 Encourage the development of housing for the elderly. Policy 5-3 Encourage non-profit groups to provide housing for the elderly citizens of South San Francisco. Encourage the development of senior housing in higher density areas close to shopping and transportation. Policy 5-4 Encourage the establishment of a range of housing types for seniors including residential board and care facilities for the elderly in the community. Consistency Analysis The proposed Specific Plan would have the potential to add up to 2035 with the addition of new transit infrastructure and an incr development. Currently, approximately 60 single-family residential housing units. As such, implementation of housing opportunities in the City by providing multifamily dwell accommodate all income levels, consistent with Goal 1 and Polici Policies 5-1, 5-2, and 5- the RHNA, the proposed Specific Plan would be subject to Policy Plan and the Housing Element to ensure consistency with the respe The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides for additional housing units and 12 million square feet of additiona proposed Specific Plan would potentially add 1,435 housing units, whic expected residential population for build-out of the City by 203 adopted for consistency when the Specific Plan is adopted that w South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing 4.7.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method This analysis considers population and household growth that wou proposed Specific Plan and whether this growth is within local o considered substantial with respect to remaining growth potentia Plan, and/or whether it would result in the displacement of hous of potential population and housing impacts considers whether po development were previously assumed to occur in a particular are impacts were analyzed by comparing the proposed Specific Plan wi from ABAG All project components described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) employment growth associated with construction activities. The propose Specific Plan are considered for their ability to directly resulAn analysis of the potential for the Specific Plan to indirectly induce growth by e providing permanent employment opportunities is also addressed. proposed allowable growth scenario as a result of implementation through a planning horizon of 2035. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have population/housing if it would: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extens infrastructure) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating housing elsewhere Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constr elsewhere Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project induce substantial population growth (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirect through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact 4.7-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not in population growth. This would be a impact. As proposed, implementation of the Specific Plan is intended to population growth forecasted for the City by introducing new res City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing As proposed, implementation of the Specific Plan could result in units between 2014 and 2035 in the study area. Additionally, up office/research and development (R&D) uses could be added in the predominantly on the eastern side of the US-101, which could rep jobs added to the City. The Specific Plan study area is currentl infrastructure is proposed as part of the proposed project excep The following analysis discusses direct population growth from t indirect population growth that could result from nonresidential Direct Population Growth from New Housing population of approximately 67,832 at build-out in 2035, as the (South San Francisco 1999, Land Use Element). The 2010 Census estimated a population of 63, residents in the City, which is 6,178 residents fewer than the Gld-out estimate. According to the Specific Plan, the study area had a population of approxi anticipates a larger rate of household and housing unit growth i County and the rest of the City by 2040 (BAE Urban Economics 201 substantial amount of growth by 2040 with an estimated three tim many jobs within the study area than in 2010 (BAE Urban Economic percent in 2010 to 12 percent by 2040 (BAE Urban Economics 2012). As noted above, implementation of the Specific Plan could result selectively in the Downtown to increase the resident population (BAE Urban Economics 2012). The Specific Plan would provide sign housing over the life span of the plan and beyond with the highe proximity of to the extended Caltrain station. Thus, this would the study , particularly in the Downtown area. Utilizing an average person-per-household factor of 2.96, the Specific Plan could result in a population increase of 4,248 residents, which would result in a citywide population of 67,88 Plan would only slightly exceed the population estimated for bui density residential areas within the study area and increased em attract new residents to the area. However, that assumes no exis to the Specific Plan area and that all new occupants of developm new to the City. It also does not account for the lower person-p is reasonable to assume that at least a percentage of new occupa City. In addition, the difference of 48 residents, assuming full the overall population of the City at build-out of the General Plan, wh significant. Therefore, the direct increase in population as a r than-significant impact. Compared to development under the General Plan, the Specific Pla new residential and employment uses within the study area. Howev South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing Zoning amendments would be adopted concurrent with the preparati General Plan and Zoning amendments, implementation of the Specif General Plan, where additional population growth due to the high would be accounted for in future population growth projections f employment rates would also be accounted for in the General Plan be consistent with all governing documents and policies regulati build-out estimated population of the amended General Plan. Thus growth as a result of new housing units would be , and no mitigation is required. Indirect Growth through Extension of Infrastructure The proposed Specific Plan would provide for infill development infrastructure. The study area is located in the center of a den Specific Plan would not include extension of the existing infras upgrades as needed. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would extension of infrastructure, and the impact would be , and no mitigation is required. Threshold Would the project displace substantial numbers of peop construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Threshold Would the project displace substantial numbers of exis construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact 4.7-2 Construction of development projects pursuant to th not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This would be a impact. The study area is currently developed with a variety of land use, and high density), commercial (Downtown and business), office an center, and open spaces uses. The proposed Specific Plan has the potential to add up to 1,435 commercial, 21,250 sf of industrial, 268,800 sf of commercial, and 1,185, 2010 and 2035. Most of the development in the study area is expected underutilized parcels in commercial areas and at the opportunity little or no redevelopment occurring on parcels occupied by resi possibility, although unlikely, that in the process of implement existing buildings and displacement of residents may be necessar Specific Plan. The Specific Plan also includes an Affordable Housing and Anti-D ensure provision of adequate affordable housing in the study are Displacement Strategy includes the following implementing strate existing tenants through the loss of affordable housing: City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing Preservation Strategies 1. Create a comprehensive inventory of existing rental housing in housing options to lower-income households. 2. Monitor the status of existing affordable rental housing in the nonprofit agencies to explore strategies for acquiring these bui 3. Conduct outreach to low-income homeowners in the study area to City and private resources for home rehabilitation, maintenance, 4. Implement housing policy provisions to protect tenants and rent stable and diverse resident community. Funding Strategies 5. dy to implement an affordable housing in-lieu fee in the study area fo projects have inclusionary requirements). The fee will generate trust fund that provides gap for affordable housing projects. 6. Conduct a study to assess the feasibility of creating a new com generate revenues for an affordable housing trust fund. 7. Partner with neighboring jurisdictions in San Mateo County to ea permanent source of financing for affordable housing in the Coun Land Use, Zoning, and Regulatory Strategies 8. Lower-income and senior households typically have lower rates o reduced parking ratios feasible, particularly in areas accessibl reduced parking ratios in the Plan Area to decrease development 9. identify sites suitable for a full range of affordable housing t In addition to these strategies, the Specific Plan includes a 20 to and senior housing, which would encourage residential development th residents displaced by redevelopment in the study area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not displace significa units necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewher on commercial or vacant sites. Additionally, the Specific Plan w residential development so that could support any affordable hou in the study area. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would n people or existing housing units necessitating the construction impact would be , and no mitigation is required. 4.7.4Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative population South San Francisco, as represented by full build- out, and cumulative development would focus on the development o commercial parcels and intensified density of these infill parce South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing Threshold Would the project induce substantial population growth (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirect through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Threshold Would the project displace substantial numbers of peop construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Threshold Would the project displace substantial numbers of exis construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ABAG projections estimate a substantial amount of growth by 2040 many households and 2.5 times as many jobs within the study area than in 2010 (BAE Urban Economics study will increase from 6 percent in 2010 to 12 percent by 2040 (BAE City does not have a substantial number of undeveloped parcels, the S redevelopment and reutilization of the Downtown and East of 101 increase Downtown population and employment opportunities. Currently approved residential projects within the City would re 247 housing units. Utilizing an average person-per-household factor of 2.96, future residential development in the City could result in a population increase of731 residents, while the Specific Plan could increase the population by 4,248 residents. In consideration of build-out of the proposed Specific Plan and approved residential projects outside could increase by a net of 1,682 979 residents. This increase in housing units and residential population slight population growth by 683 persons. This represents 1.0 percent of build-out. This determination of exceedances of population growth projectio occupants of new residential development would be new residents that a certain percentage of project occupants would be existing exceedances of population estimates by 683 persons as a result o population growth would remain consistent with regional and count Urban Economics 2012) and would not be considered substantial. T population growth would be . While the proposed Specific Plan could include demolition activi substantial numbers of residents would not be displaced, as new constructed on vacant or underutilized commercial sites within t existing housing would not be displaced. Since the Specific Plan stock 1,435 housing units, construction of replacement housing e In consideration of build-out of the proposed Specific Plan and Specific 1,435 units by 2040. Therefore, cumulative development in the City would not displace substantial numbers o construction of housing elsewhere would be necessary. Therefore, displacement of housing or people would be . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.7-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.7 Population/Housing 4.7.5References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2007. ABAG Projections 2007: Regional Projections. . 2009. ABAG Projections 2009: Regional Projections. BAE Urban Economics. 2012. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Affordable Housin Displacement Strategy, November 19. http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/storage/121119%20SSF %20AHAD%20Strategy%20draft.pdf (accessed November 18, 2013). California Department of Finance (CDOF). 1981. E-4 Historical Population Estimates for California Cities and Counties, 19701980. Sacramento, California. . 2002. E-4 Revised Historical City, County and State Population Estimat2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, March. . 2007. E-4 Historical Population Estimates for City, County and the S2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts. Sacramento, California, August. . 2009. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 20012009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May. . 2011a. Demographics Research Unit, State Census Department, Ta and 2010 Incorporated Cities by County in California), generated March http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web& &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2Fresearch%2Fdemographic%2Fstat 2Fcensus_2010%2Fdocuments%2F2010Census_Table1_RedistrictingFile. c9oCACA&usg=AFQjCNF8reQH3_uwjIBbmAIhnPFKtaaMEQ&bvm=bv.56643336,d. . 2011b. Demographics Research Unit, State Census Department, Ta Households, and Vacant Units: 2000 and 2010 Incorporated Cities by Count generated March 8, 2011. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source= web&cd=3&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dof.ca.gov%2Fresearc hic%2Fstate_census_data_center%2Fcensus_2010%2Fdocuments%2F2010C ctingFile.xls&ei=IeCMUum2DNay4APfq4HwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFhpfFBDKoXe4lk CA&bvm=bv.56643336,d.dmg. California Employment Development Department. 2013. Labor Force November 2013. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/county/smateo.htm (accessed November 14, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2009. City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element, June 24. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/906 (accessed November 14, 2013). U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census 2000. . 2010. United States Census 2010. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.7-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services 4.8PUBLIC SERVICES This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff implementation of the proposed project. For purposes of this EIR into four subsections: (1) fire protection and emergency respons (4) libraries. No comment letters addressing public services were re preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project. Fire Protection and Emergency Response This section of the EIR describes fire protection and emergency South San Francisco and analyzes the potential physical environm and emergency response created by construction of new or additio implementation of the proposed project. Data for this section were provided by South San Francisco Fire entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.8.5 (R 4.8.1Environmental Setting The SSFFD is responsible for protecting lives and property in th standard building construction, natural disasters, hazardous mat by means of direct response, public education and code developme Francisco n.d.a). The SSFFD provides the following services to t Francisco: Fire Prevention, Municipal Code Enforcement, Fire Suppre (Advanced Life Support and non-emergency Basic Life Support ambu Search and Rescue, Hazardous Materials, Public Education, Disast and Rescue services (South San Francisco n.d.b). The SSFFD is di as structure fires, hazardous materials, medical calls, traffic also works i planning and building and safety) to ensure that all new constru compliance with local and State building and fire codes as well emergency access and on-site fire protection measures. of South San Francisco. South San Francisco contains vegetation land that is poorly maintained and overgrown and nonnative veget threat of wildland fire. Poor access and inadequate local water property in fire. The General Plan has identified areas within t however, the study area is not located within an identified fire Figure 8-4 [Fire Hazard Management Units], 8-269). Fire stations are strategically located throughout the City to provid SSFFD has firefighters and paramedics located in five different City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Table 4.8-1 (Fire Station Facilities) describes the stations and Figure 4.8-1 (Fire and Police Facilities) identifies the locations of each fire station in the City. Table 4.8-1 Fire Station Facilities Station Location Distance Equipment No. 480 North Canal Approximately 0.14 mile south Engine 61; Rescue 61 ambulance; BLS Ambulance; Battalion Chief 61 St of the study area BC17. Approximately 0.25 mile Quint 62 (combination of an Engine and a Truck); Technical Rescu 62 249 Harbor Wy southeast of the study area Trailer and Utility 62; Rescue Boat 62 (located at Oyster Point Marina) Approximately 1.8 miles west of 63 33 Arroyo Dr Engine 63 and Rescue 63 ambulance the study area Approximately 2.47 miles 64 2350 Galway Dr Engine 64 and Reserve 67 ambulance southwest of the study area 1151 South San Approximately 0.64 mile 65 Engine 65; Type 1 Heavy Rescue USAR 165 and Reserve Engine 66 Francisco Dr northwest of the study area SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco Fire DeStations (n.d.c), http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=452 (accessed November 14, 2013). Response time is defined as the time that elapses between the mo the moment when the first unit assigned to the call arrives at t service within the City in 2013 for SSFFD Fire Engine and Quint average emergency response time for SSFFD Rescue Ambulance calls wi 5 minutes 45 seconds (Nuckolls 2013). Approximately 85 members are allocated to the fire department to serve th (South San Francisco 2013). Each engine company is staffed with two paramedics (South San Francisco n.d.d). Minimum on-duty staf Francisco n.d.a). Every effort is made to staff each engine comp create what is called a paramedic engine company, also known as engine company. Standardized Emergency Management System The Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) is an organi required by California Government Code Section 8607(a) for the p multi-agency and multi-jurisdiction emergencies in California. S levels, which are activated as necessary, and include: field res Office of Emergency Services (OES) Mutual Aid Regions, and State incorporates the use of the Incident Command System (ICS), the M existing mutual aid systems, the Operational Area Concept, the O System (OASIS), and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination (C Francisco has adopted an emergency operations plan, the Associat (ABAG) Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2010, m South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-2 PROJECT LOCATION 5 2 3 1 1 2 4 LEGEND PLAN AREA BOUNDARY CITY BOUNDARY FIRE STATIONS # 1. Station 61 480 North Canal Street 2. Station 62 249 Harbor Way 3. Station 63 33 Arroyo Drive 4. Station 64 2350 Galway Drive 5. Station 65 1151 South San Francisco Drive POLICE STATIONS # 1. 33 Arroyo Drive 2. 329 Miller Avenue 02505001000 NOT TO SCALE Source: Figure 4.8-1 Fire and Police Facilities Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services department and multi-jurisdiction emergencies and to facilitate between all levels of the system and among all responding depart Mutual Aid Agreements The foundation of California's emergency planning and response i is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and o whenever their own resources are inadequate to cope with a given Services Act mandates the use of the California Disaster and Civ Agreement as the standard form of agreement between jurisdiction creates a formal structure wherein the City retains control of i but may also receive or render assistance to/from other jurisdic obligated to provide available resources to assist the City in e negotiation and preparation of mutual aid agreements rests with agreements exist in law enforcement, fire services, medical and emergency management. OES provides administrative coordination and support for designa three administrative regional offices. The City of South San Fra located in Region II of the Office of Emergency Services Coastal services could be called for support and these include local law enfor agencies involved in fire hazard mitigation, response, and recov: Office of Emergency Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Urba Agriculture Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Administration, National Weather Service, the Department of the Department of Defense (Cal OES 2008, 3-5 and 3-6). 4.8.2Regulatory Framework Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency In March 2003, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response a national incident. FEMA also initiates mitigation activities, tr National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administratio Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 In 2000, the Disaster Mitigation Act amended the Robert T. Staff other things, this new legislation reinforces the importance of planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide by controlling and federal disaster relief and developing programs that promote haz City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Funding for pre-disaster mitigation activities Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand ris Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigatio Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing t Program (HMGP) Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded The mitigation planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of th standards for mitigation plans. The Act further requires states to pro (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to develop County gove develop an infrastructure mitigation plan, risk significant redu repair/replacement of damaged facilities if that facility has be during the preceding 10-year period by a similar event. International Fire Code The International Fire Code includes specialized technical fire the construction and maintenance of buildings and land uses. Top department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, f hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions responders, industrial processes, and many other general and spe and existing buildings. State California Fire Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, P9) The California Fire Code is Part 9 of the California Code of Reg referred to as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). The Califor International Fire Code with amendments necessary to includes regulations which are consistent with nationally recogn to facilitate protection of life and property. Among other thing the hazards of fire explosion, management and control of the sto materials and devices, mitigation of conditions considered hazar occupancy of buildings and provisions to assist emergency respon California Health and Safety Code State fire regulations set forth in California Health and Safety building standards, fire protection and notification systems, provision o extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare training. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) 2009, and created by Assembly Bill (AB) 38, which merged the duties, powers, purposes Cal EMA is responsible for the coordination of overall state age and recover from all hazardsnatural, manmade, war-caused emergencies and disastersand for assisting local governments in their emergency preparedness, res efforts. California Code of Regulations, Title 19 CCR Title 19, Chapters 1 through 6, establishes regulations rela preparedness. Local City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Fire Code T Municipal Code Chapter 15.24 with amendments as the South San Fr General Plan Fire Hazards Element The City of South San Francisco Fire Hazards Element is concerne enhancing fire protection services. Applicable goals and policie Goal 8.4-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South Goal 8.4-G-2 Policy 8.4-I-1 Institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on public lands in those management units identified in Figure 8-4 and Table 8.4-1 of the Fire Hazards Element. Policy 8.4-I-2 Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard management program to encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their property. Policy 8.4-I-3 Consider future access and water supply infrastructure improvements in the Dundee and Sign Hill areas to reduce fire hazard risk. Policy 8.4-I-4 Require site design features, fire retardant building materials and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvement to reduce the risk of fire within the City. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Consistency Analysis Any future development under the proposed project would be requi local laws with respect to fire safety. Compliance with the regu pertaining to fire protection systems and equipment, general saf and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing bu ensuring consistency with the General Plan goals and policies re Therefore, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would no 4.8.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method The proposed project was analyzed to determine its impact on exi by SSFFD within the City. Impacts on fire protection services ar population or building area would result in inadequate staffing demand for services that would require the construction of new f of existing fire protection facilities that may have an adverse Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have fire protection and emergency response if it would: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with t altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi the construction of which could cause significant environmental acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance emergency response Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for fire protect response? Impact 4.8-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause s environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service r response times, or other performance objectives for fire protect emergency response. This would be a impact. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Implementation of the Specific Plan would modify land use design and new uses in the study area. As discussed in Section 4.7 (Pop the potential to add 1,435 housing units between 2010 and 2035. Additionally, up to 1.2 million square feet (sf) of new office/ research and development (R&D) uses cou representing as many as 2,400 new jobs added to the City. The Ci (1999) provides for build-out of a maximum 3,620 additional hous additional nonresidential space to the City. The Specific Plan would resu population growth (0.07 percent) than that identified in the Gen consistent with the General Plan and other land use plans because a General adopted for consistency when the Specific Plan is adopted that w However, the future increase in the residential population would fire service calls to the area compared to existing conditions. The current personnel-to-population ratio for the SSFFD is 1.33 firefighters per 1,000 r 2013), during the planning horizon for the proposed project, the project could increase the City population by 4,248 residents. These the current ratio of 1.33 fire-fighters per 1,000 residents, SSF firefighters for a total of 90 during the lifetime of the Specif It is not possible to specify the exact type, location, size, or and long-range nature of the proposed project. Instead, the Spec intensity of development that would be allowed to occur in ident Public Safety Impact Fee (2012) for all new development. This fe infrastructure or public services necessitated by new developmen Specific Plan would be required to pay this fee. However, constr expected as a result of this project. Further reducing impacts to fire services, all development pursu required to comply with provisions of the California Building Co protection systems and equipment, general safety precautions, an fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings and prem provisions (South San Francisco Municipal Code Sections 15.08.010 and 15.24.010). Compliance with Municipal Code requirements and payment of Publi that this impact would be . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services 4.8.4Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for fire protect response? The geographic context for the consideration of impacts related services is the City of South San Francisco, which represents th additional development occurs in the City, there may be a cumula services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. All required to comply with provisions of the California Building Co to fire protection systems and equipment, general safety precaut specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildi access provisions. Additionally, all new development within the vel of service. Cumulative development within the City would result in additiona result in a significant cumulative impact if existing services w growth. This would be a potentially significant cumulative impac within the City, the SSFFD will continue to monitor response tim impact fees to ensure that the SSFFD is operating within the cur the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts o cumulatively considerable with compliance with Municipal Code re Safety Impact Fee. This would be a impact. 4.8.5References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2010. Taming Natural Disasters: Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2010 Update of the 2005 Plan. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation/ (accessed November 21, 2013). San Francisco Bay Area Regional Emergency Coordination Plan. Base Plan, March. . 2011. Standardized Emergency Management System. http://www.calema.ca.gov/planningandpreparedness/pages/standardi system.aspx (accessed November 21, 2013). Nuckolls, Travis. 2013. Email from Deputy Fire Chief to Atkins r Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Environmental Impact Report 9:18 . AM South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Chapter 8 (Health and Safety Element). Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360 (accessed November 19, 2013). . 2012. Annual Impact Fee Report for Fiscal Year 2012/2013. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/5459 (accessed April 4, 2 . 2013. City of South San Francisco Fiscal Year 20132014 Adopted Operation Budget, Pages J- 160, 2013. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/5192 (accessed November 18, 2013). . n.d.a. City of South San Francisco Fire DepartmentAbout Us. http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=418 (accessed November 20, 2013). . n.d.b. City of South San Francisco Fire DepartmentAdministration. http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=418 (accessed November 21, 2013). . n.d.c. City of South San Francisco Fire DepartmentStations. http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=452 (accessed November 14, 2013). . n.d.d. City of South San Francisco Fire DepartmentSuppression. http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=448 (accessed November 20, 2013). . n.d.e. Fire Department Stations. http://ca- southsanfrancisco.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=452 (accessed November 14, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. State and County Quick Facts: South Sa http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0673262.html (accessed November 20, 2013). Police Protection This section of the EIR describes police protection services wit analyzes the potential physical environmental effects related to of new or additional facilities associated with implementation o Data for this section were provided by the South San Francisco P reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in S 4.8.6Environmental Setting The study area is in the center of South of San Francisco and is by the SSFPD (Campbell 2013). Police-related incidents occurring (SMCS), Transit Bureau. However, the SSFPD acts as the first responder to emergency situations on Transit Bureau once the incident is resolved. In the event that deputy to handle the incident, SSFPD generally prepares a courte pursuant to the mutual aid policies adopted by both departments. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) The SSFPD has one main station located at 33 Arroyo Drive. The p station located at 329 Miller Avenue (within the study area); ho (refer to Figure 4.8-1). In 2013, the SSFPD response times to Priority 1 (emergency) 3.21 minutes and non-emergency calls averaged 5.76 minutes. These res acceptable (Campbell 2013). As of 2014, the Department had a total of 114 employees, with 79 positions (South San Francisco 2014). The unsworn, civilian pers include: parking enforcement, police service technicians, dispatch, evi management, information technology and secretarial positions. ,632 residents (U.S. Census 2010), the current officer-to- population ratio for SSFPD is 1.24 officers per 1,000 residents. General Plan suggests a target ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 r to all emergencies (South San Francisco 1999, 273). As such, the to recommended staffing levels (Campbell 2013). The daytime civi due to the growing workforce in t considered acceptable at this time (Campbell 2013). Services provided by the SSFPD include response to emergency and routine patrol, traffic enforcement, investigation of crime, par solving. The SSFPD Patrol Division is the primary provider of po 24-hour basis. The Patrol Division personnel are prepared to respo nonemergency calls for services in each the City. The patrol div Shift Teams, two Swing Shift Teams and two Grave Shift Teams. Ea a Team Leader (Corporal) and several patrol officers. Officers w one officer per patrol vehicle. The City of South San Francisco provides all saf and needed to provide essential duties as a police officer (Camp The police department provides a Downtown bicycle patrol unit ye merchants to resolve any problems. The unit consists of two swor and one officer year-round. The police department also maintains division, school resource officers, community policing division, tactical unit (SWAT), and a neighborhood response team. The poli acceptable level of equipment and seeks to maintain and improve 4.8.7Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to police protection se South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services State There are no state regulations related to police protection serv Local City of South San Francisco General Plan Law EnforcementHealth and Safety Element The City of South San Francisco Law Enforcement Section of the H concerned with identifying, maintaining, and enhancing law enfor policies of this Section include the following: Goal 8.5-G-1 secure environment for people and property in the community. Goal 8.5-G-2 Assist in crime prevention through physical planning and communit Policy 8.5-I-1 Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. Actions that could be taken to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies include: Maintain a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. Policy 8.5-I-2 Control and/or intervene in conduct recognized as threatening to life and property. Policy 8.5-I-3 Reduce crime by strengthening the police/community partnership. Policy 8.5-I-4 Assess community needs and expectations on an ongoing basis and report periodically to the City Council on citizen complaints and citizen commendations received. Policy 8.5-I-5 Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, State and federal plans. Consistency Analysis Future development under the Specific Plan would increase the po result in more crime and a need for additional police personnel Safety Impact Fee program would ensure that adequate funding for would be provided to maintain acceptable levels of service throu implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not conflict City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services 4.8.8Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Impacts on police protection services are considered significant area would result in inadequate staffing levels (as measured by loads) and/or increased demand for services that would require the co altered police protection facilities that might have an adverse Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have police protection if it would: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with t altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi the construction of which could cause significant environmental acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, ew or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for police prote Impact 4.8-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause s environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service r response times, or other performance objectives for police prote would be a impact. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in land use cha which would result in direct population growth. The Specific Pla units to the study area. Additionally, up to 1.2 million sf of n study area, representing as many as 2,400 new jobs added to the City. Section 4.7, the City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provide 3,620 housing units and 12 million sf of nonresidential space to the City. The proposed Speci would not exceed the maximum build-out planned for the City by 20 the residential population in the study area could result in an calls to the area compared to existing conditions. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services .S. Census 2010), the current officer-to- population ratio is 1.24 on 2.96 pph (U.S. residents. To maintain the existing ratio (which is considered a above) of 1.24 officers per 1,000 residents, SSFPD would need to life of the Specific Plan, increasing the size of the SSFPD to a In addition to increasing the residential population, implementat the daytime civilian population, which currently rises to over 1 the City of South San Francisco. Implementation of the Station A population by 2,400 or more. The Specific Plan would result in only slightly more population in the General Plan but would be considered to be consistent with growt Plan and other land use plans. The future increase in the residential population would result i increase in the number of police calls to the area compared to e long-range nature of the proposed project, it is not possible to timing of future development. Instead, the Specific Plan prescri that would be allowed to occur. In order to ensure that an adequ imposes a Public Safety Impact Fee for all new development to fu services. It is not anticipated that new police facilities would proposed project. It should be noted that a variety of approaches can be used to e but not necessarily limited to, hiring (temporary and/or full-ti reassignments. Therefore, increases in staffing are evaluated by process, and personnel are hired, or overtime pay is funded for that adequate police protection services are provided. Therefore, the impact on police protection services would be . 4.8.9Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for police prote The geographic context for the consideration of cumulative impac of South San Francisco, which represents the SS the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for pol equipment. The provision of adequate police services is of criti allocated to these services during the annual monitoring and bud protection services are responsive to changes in the City. Funds City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services inspection fees, and permit fees (for new development) are depos allocated to City services, as needed. As noted in the Public Sa development is required to contribute its share of funding for t -out (South San Francisco 2012). Similarly, staffing levels are evaluated by the SSFPD during the annual bud as needed, to ensure that adequate police protection services ar Cumulative development in the City would result in increased dem which could result in a significant cumulative impact if existin accommodate the growth. This is a potentially significant cumula not include specific development projects and merely updates the are applied within the study area, and future individual develop Specific Plan study area would be evaluated on a project-by-proj General Plan. The Specific Plan does permit additional residenti above that originally permitted in the General Plan. However, the exc projections would be extremely small, only 0.07 percent of the t not be significant. The Specific Plan would be considered consistent w applicable land use plans. All new development pursuant to the S Public Safety Impact Fee to help fund any needed improvements or facilities. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project services would not be cumulatively considerable. This would be a impact. 4.8.10References Campbell, Sergeant Scott. 2013. Memorandum to Atkins re: SSF Downtown Stat November 20. San Mateo County Sheriff. 2010. Transit Police Bureau. http://www.smcsheriff.com/divisions/operations-division/transit- (accessed November 21, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Chapter 8 (Health and Safety Element). Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360 (accessed November 19, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 2013. City of South San Francisco Operation Budget, p. B-5. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/5192 (accessed November 18, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. State and County Quick FactsSouth San Francisco, June 17. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0673262.html (accessed November 20, 2013). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Schools This section of the EIR describes school services within the Cit potential physical environmental effects related to schools crea facilities associated with implementation of the proposed Specif Data for this section were obtained from the South San Francisco Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided 4.8.11Environmental Setting The Specific Plan study area would be served by the SSFUSD. The schools in South San Francisco, as well as one elementary school district also has an adult education program, and works on every management. The SSFUSD operates nine elementary schools (serving three middle schools (serving grades six through eight); and thr twelve). Collectively, these facilities in school year 2012/13 h 9,265 seats, 4,163 are at the elementary school level; 2,069 are at th the high school level (CDOE 2013). The study area would be served by the following SSFUSD schools: Elementary, Spruce Elementary, Parkway Heights Middle, and South n.d.a, n.d.b, n.d.c). The current enrollment and location of SSF listed in Table 4.8-2 (Capacity and Enrollment of Schools Serving the Study Area). school is illustrated on Figure 4.8-2 (Schools Serving the Study Area). According to correspondence with SSFUSD Student Services, the total for the most recent year is 9,156 (as of April 4, 2014). SSFUSD approximately 9,150 students for the most recent school year, 20 per classroom for grades K5 and 612 are as follows: grades K3: 24; grades 45: 29; and grades 612: 33. - Education Demographics Unit for the years 20122013, enrollment within the school district has been declining i recent years (http://www.cde.ca.gov, accessed 04/15/14). SSFUSD regulates school capacity based on class size rather than school size, and there is no upper limit high school. If enrollment increases, the SSFUSD brings modular accommodate students and ensure that class size remains fairly c schools; Spruce Elementary and Parkway Heights Middle Schools, s that are over the capacity by the standards set by the District. No new school facilities are anticipated; however, development impact revenue in the provision of additional school resources needed f used for construction or renovation of schools. Although it is n (SSFUSD 2013) the current fees are $2.24 per residential square foo foot, neither of which is at the maximum level permitted by stat City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services At the moment, SSFUSD has some school sites being re-modified/re construction project. This may add some additional classroom spa SSFUSD will also be reviewing their open enrollment/intradistric subsequently be balancing their enrollments across school sites (communication with Mr. Ryan Sebers of SSFUSD). Table 4.8-2 Schools Serving the Study Area School Location Enrollment (2012/13) Elementary Los Cerritos Elementary 210 West Orange Ave 306 Martin Elementary 35 School St 443 Spruce Elementary 501 Spruce Ave 645 Middle Parkway Heights Middle 650 Sunset Ave 567 High South San Francisco High 400 B St 1,442 SOURCES: California Department of Education, Education Demographics Unit,-13, District and School Enrolment by Grade (May 30, 2013), http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoi- 13&cSelect=4169070--SOUTH%20SAN%20FRANCISCO%20UNIFIED&TheCounty=&cLevel= District&cTopic=Enrollment&myTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B (accessed November 21, 2013); City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco General Plan (October 1999), Chapter 5 (Parks, Public Facilities, and Services), Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, p. 194, http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360 (accessed November 20, 2013). 4.8.12Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to schools that are app State California State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926)School Facilities Act of 1986 In 1986, AB 2926 was enacted by the state of California authoriz residential and commercial/industrial development in order to pay for the School Facilities Act of 1986, was expanded and revised in 1987 th which added Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. Under this statut developers would serve as total CEQA mitigation to satisfy the impac facilities. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-18 LEGEND PLAN AREA BOUNDARY CITY BOUNDARY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL # 1. Los Cerritos Elementary 2. Martin Elementary 3. Spruce Elementary MIDDLE SCHOOL # 1. Parkway Heights Middle HIGH SCHOOL # 1. South San Francisco High 1 2 3 1 1 02505001000 NOT TO SCALE Source: Figure 4.8-2 Schools Serving the Study Area Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services California Government Code Section 65995School Facilities Legislation The School Facilities Legislation was enacted to generate revenue f acquisitions and improvements. California Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) The passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analysis process to 65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect f with increasing school capacity as a result of development. The fees assessed based upon the proposed square footage of residential, structure uses. Level Two fees require the developer to provide students in new schools, while the state would provide the other developer to pay the full cost of accommodating the students in at the time the funds available from Proposition 1A (approved by School districts must demonstrate to the state their long-term f term population growth in order to qualify for this source of fu Proposition 55 on March 2, 2004, precludes the imposition of the future. Therefore, once qualified, districts may impose Level one and according to SB 50. Local City of South San Francisco General Plan Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element The City of South San Francisco Parks, Public Facilities and Ser standards relating to parks and recreation, educational faciliti related to the physical development of South San Francisco. Appl Element include the following: Goal 5.2-G-1 Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to m and improve educational facilities and services. Goal 5.2-G-2 Work with the SSFUSD and local neighborhoods on appropriate land school sites no longer needed for educational purposes. Goal 5.2-G-3 Continue to coordinate with the District the joint use of school facilities for community-wide use. Policy 5.2-I-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational facilities. Acquire closed school sites for recreation facilities and childcare purposes where appropriate. Policy 5.2-I-2 Investigate creation and application of a single-purpose school zone to all school sites. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-21 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Consistency Analysis Future development under the Specific Plan would increase the po increase demand for schools. All new residential development is offset increased demand for schools, including development under 4.8.13Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Impacts on schools are determined by analyzing the projected inc to determine whether new or altered facilities would be required significant if an increase in population or building area would and/or increased demand for services that would require the cons school facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have schools if it would: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with t altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi the construction of which could cause significant environmental acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for schools? Impact 4.8-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause s environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service r response times, or other performance objectives for schools. Imp school services would be . Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increases in population growth. The Specific Plan has the potential to add up South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-22 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services and 2035 and up to 1.2 million sf of new office/R&D uses in the Francisco General Plan (1999) provides for build-out of a maximu and 12 million sf of additional nonresidential space to the City nonresidential development that would occur with implementation of the Sp generally consistent with General Plan projections, resulting in 0.07 percent, of total projected population), and a General Plan Ame the project to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Due to the size and long-range nature of the proposed project, i location, size, or timing of future development. Instead, the Sp intensity of development that would be allowed to occur. It is e Specific Plan would result in an increase of new students throug Table 4.8-2. None of the schools serving the study area would be the sole students. Instead, new students would be enrolled in schools thr on the location of residential development and the age of the st The SSFUSD does not place caps on enrollment at any of its schoo is 24 students per classroom for grades K3, 29 students per classroom for grades 45, and 33 students per class for grades 612. As enrollment increases, the SSFUSD bring modular units onto property to maintain this level of classroom size. Re-modification of specific schools site within the SSFUSD would add additional classroom space. Additionally, SSFUSD will a enrollment/intradistrict transfer requests, and will subsequentl school sites and grade levels. Therefore, new students generated would not result in overcrowding. The State of California is responsible for the funding of public serve students generated by new development, the governing board levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any district, for the purposes of funding the construction or recons requires project sponsors of future development located within t development impact fees in effect at the time of building permit additional school services required by the new development. Due to the declining enrollment throughout the district in combi school locations that would be available to serve new students g Specific Plan, new or physically altered school facilities are n development, the construction of which could result in significa are required in the future, the payment of fees collected under additional increase in educational demand at the elementary scho serving future residential development in the Station Area Plan, future new school construction would be evaluated on a project-l . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-23 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services 4.8.14Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for schools? The geographic context for the consideration of cumulative impac of the SSFUSD. Increases in residential development throughout t demand for enrollment in local schools. The degree to which this dependent upon future enrollment trends. Schools within the serv accommodate expansion and contraction of enrollment by utilizati standard for class size. All new private development is required school districts to help fund construction of additional classro education demand at elementary, middle, and high schools. Given impact of future development on the SSFUSD, including development under would be less than significant. Further, as with any future proj area, project-level environmental review would be required shoul required. Therefore, the incremental effect of the proposed proj cumulatively considerable, and this cumulative impact would be . 4.8.15References California Department of Education (CDOE), Education Demographic Grade for 2012-13, District and School Enrolment by Grade, May 3 http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/GradeEnr.aspx?cChoi -13&cSelect=4169070-- SOUTH%20SAN%20FRANCISCO%20UNIFIED&TheCounty=&cLevel=District&cTo lment&myTimeFrame=S&cType=ALL&cGender=B (accessed November 21, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Chapter 5 (Parks, Public Facilities, and Services). Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360 (accessed November 20, 2013). South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD). n.d.a. Ele http://ssfusd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1295706269370/1316928843086 (accessed November 21, 2013). . n.d.b. High School Attendance Area Map. http://ssfusd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1295706269370/1316928843086 (accessed November 21, 2013). . n.d.c. Middle School Attendance Area Map. http://ssfusd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1295706269370/1316928843086 (accessed November 21, 2013). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-24 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Libraries This section of the EIR describes library services within the Ci potential physical environmental effects related to libraries cr facilities associated with implementation of the proposed projec Data for this section were taken from City of San Francisco Adop Year 20132014, U.S. Census Bureau, and Peninsula Library System and full cited materials are provided in Section 4.8.25 (References). 4.8.16Environmental Setting The South San Francisco Library System is an independent City li Peninsula Library System. The Peninsula Library System is a consthirty-five public and community college libraries working together to provide innovative and cost-effective servic users in San Mateo County (Peninsula Library System 2008). The South San Francisco library system has two libraries and two of South San Francisco and San Mateo County residents. The South locations throughout the City are listed in Table 4.8-3 (South San Francisco Library System). Table 4.8-3 South San Francisco Library System Library Branch Address Main Library 840 West Orange Ave Grand Avenue Branch Library 306 Walnut Ave Literacy Program Address Community Learning Center 520 Tamarack Ln Project Read 840 West Orange Ave, Lower Level SOURCE: Peninsula Library System, About PLS (2008), http://plsinfo.org/About-PLS (accessed November 18, 2013). The Main Library and the Grand Avenue Library provide library an adults, young adults and children. In addition, the Grand Avenue Francisco historical collection, a large Spanish language collec bilingual references. The Community Learning Center is a literac 1,500 children and adults annually (South San Francisco n.d.a). educational programs provide English languages classes, computer activities for children, native language literacy classes (Spani San Francisco n.d.b). The Project Read program is located within Read program is a literacy program provided to library patrons a reading, writing and math skills. In addition, Project Read offe family story time, computer lab, and Learning Wheels (a mobile p Francisco n.d.c). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-25 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services The South San Francisco Library collection contains 189,672 book Technical Services Division processed 14,629 items (South San Fr105). There were approximately 730,000 items checked out of the library in fiscal E-105). The South San Francisco Library system currently has a full-ti comprised of 37.66 actual full-time and part-time paid staff) an 9.25 members comprised of community volunteers that donated 15,2 programs (South San Francisco 2013, E-164 to E-165). 4.8.17Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to library services app State There are no state regulations related to library services appli Local There are no local regulations related to library services appli 4.8.18Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Impacts on library services are considered significant if an inc result in inadequate staffing levels and/or increased demand for new or physically altered library facilities in order to maintai Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have libraries if it would: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with t altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi the construction of which could cause significant environmental acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-26 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for libraries? Impact 4.8-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not re adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physicall altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physi governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause s environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service r response times, or other performance objectives for libraries. T be a impact. According to State of California Library Statistics there should 0.00036 full- (U.S. Census 2010), the South San Francisco Library currently hao 2013, E-164 to E-165), which is an excess of 14 staff members according to this stan in Section 4.7, the Specific Plan has the potential to add 1,435 pph (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), implementation of the Specific Pl could add approximately 4,248 residents to the City of South San residential population would require a total of 24 staff members under the Library Statistics standard would be sufficient. In addition, the Peninsula Library System, 35 public and community college libraries for the County of San Mateo, would be available to residents. Like all areas of the City, the study area is served by the South Sa combined collection of 189,672 books and audio-visual materials. provide more than the standard of 2.0 items per capita recommend Association. There would, therefore, be no substantial increase respect to the number of items available to South of San Francis would accommodate the increased demand. In addition, the study a ncisco Library system and the Peninsula Library System are accessible from all portions of demands of future residents. In addition, due to the growing use of electronic resources, for number of staff or volumes per thousand residents) no longer acc library. Therefore, increased development in the City does not n demand for volumes or square feet of library space; in addition of 25 percent of parcels in the study area over a 20-year timefr proposed project is not expected to require any new or physicall project, the construction of which could result in significant e be . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.8-27 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.8 Public Services 4.8.19Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project result in substantial adverse physic provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptab response times, or other performance objectives for libraries? The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to Francisco Library System service area in the City of South San F anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, inclu City of South San Francisco as provided in Chapter 3 (Project De analysis, the cumulative demand for library services within the Cit build-out of the Specific Plan and other cumulative growth. Howe the project would not decrease the ratio of library items below recommended by the California Library Association, nor would it average service ratio of 0.00036 full-time employees per residen Library. Other future projects would also be required to adhere Library Association. Additionally, the current surplus of librar additional cumulative development would be met adequately withou cumulative impact on library services would be . 4.8.20References Peninsula Library System. 2008. About PLS. http://plsinfo.org/About-PLS (accessed November 18, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2013. City of South San Francisco Fiscal Year 20132014 Adopted Operation Budget. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/View/5192 (accessed November 18, 2013). . n.d.a. Community Learning CenterAbout Us. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=548 (accessed November 18, 2013). . n.d.b. Community Learning CenterPrograms. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=556 (accessed November 18, 2013). . n.d.c. Project ReadAbout Us. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=588 (accessed November 18, 2013). U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. State and County Quick FactsSouth San Francisco, June 17. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0673262.html (accessed November 20, 2013). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.8-28 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation 4.9RECREATION This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff of the proposed project. No comment letters addressing recreation were received in response notice of preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project. -list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.9.5 (References). 4.9.1Environmental Setting Existing Conditions Physical Setting Parks and Open Space Parks and recreational open spaces provide opportunities for bot informal sports, and passive recreation. Despite the relatively landscape and pattern of development. These range from shoreline Sign Hill Park, situated at an elevation of more than 600 feet. County Parka major regional open space resource and prominent visual landmalies directly north of the city. The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department playgrounds (comprising 70 acres); two linear parks (17.5 acres) with trails, a second of the Bay Trail; and a community park. In including two recreation centers, one gymnasium, one indoor swim one senior center, and operates before and after school daycare campuses. Given the City population of 63,632 residents, existing faciliti and open space per 1,000 residents. Table 4.9-1 (Existing Park Acreage) provides a summary of existing park and recreational facilities within the City. While this amount a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, closer analysis revea development parkland is actually available. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.9-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Table 4.9-1 Existing Park Acreage Park Acres Address City Recreation Facilities 1 Orange Memorial Park 26.9 Orange Avenue & Tennis Drive 2 Westborough Park 11.1 Westborough & Galway 3 Alta Loma Park 9.0 450 Camaritas 4 Avalon Park 2.4 Dorado Way & Old Country Way 5 Brentwood Park 3.0 Rosewood & Briarwood 6 Buri Buri Park 4.2 200 Block of Arroyo 7 Centennial Way 16 SSF BARTSan Bruno BART 8 City Hall Playlot 0.1 Miller & Walnut 9 Clay Park 0.8 Clay & Dundee 10 Cypress & Pine Playlot 0.3 Cypress & Pine 11 Francisco Terrace Playlot 0.3 Terrace & S. Spruce 12 Gardiner Playlot 0.1 Gardiner & Randolph 13 Terrabay Ballfield 4.1 Hillside School 14 Paradise Valley Park 0.9 Hillside & Spruce 15 Sellick Park 4.5 Appian Way 16 Sister Hill Park 1.5 Between Orange & Spruce 17 Terrabay Gymnasium N/A 1121 South San Francisco Drive 18 Elkwood Park 1.8 Duval & Greystone Drives 19 Newman and Gibbs Playlot 0.2 Newman & Gibbs 20 Dundee Playlot 0.2 Dundee & Mansfield 21 Zamora Park 0.7 Zamora Drive Common Green Area 49.1 N/A City Recreation Facilities 1 Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building N/A 781 Tennis Drive 2 Municipal Services Building N/A 33 Arroyo Drive 3 Terrabay Recreation Building N/A 1121 South San Francisco 4 Westborough Recreation Building N/A 2380 Galway Subtotal 144.9 Open Space Recreation 1 Sign Hill Park 41 Access-Poplar Ave 2 Oyster Point Marina N/A N/A 3 Community Garden N/A Commercial Avenue & Chestnut Avenue Subtotal 59.5 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.9-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Table 4.9-1 Existing Park Acreage Park Acres Address Other Recreational Space Athletic Fields 13.6 N/A Subtotal 13.6 Total 218 SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, Parks & Recreation, http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=1713 (accessed October 25, 2013). Recreation Facilities and Programs Community and recreation centers provide space for many of the c has six community/recreation buildings, some of which are used for specialized services such as senior programs at the Municipal Services Building, and Boys and Girls Club prog Center. The City also has an indoor public pool at Orange Park. High School and El Camino High School supplement Orange Park poo gymnasium was constructed in 1998 as part of the Terrabay projec The City offers a variety of recreation and special programs, ra Both indoor and outdoor recreational programs occur in a combina types of programs offered range from recreational and competitiv performances in the cultural and performing arts. The City offer groups, such as teenagers or seniors, and day camp, preschool, a Parks Community parks serve a citywide population and usually include courts, swimming pools, recreation buildings, and other special parking are generally provided. Although community parks have a neighborhood parks, they often serve a neighborhood function as maintains three community parks totaling approximately 39 acres. Neighborhood parks are devoted primarily to serving a small port walking and biking distance from residences. These parks are des recreation activities. Play equipment, open turf areas, and picn restrooms and off-street parking may not. Neighborhood parks typ in South San Francisco. There are five existing neighborhood parks in the 24 acres. Mini parks are small play areas or green spaces, usually less th children or for visual purposes. In addition to play equipment, these par opportunities, such as handball or basketball. There are twelve San Francisco totaling approximately 7 acres. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.9-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Linear geographic features, such as watercourses and shorelines, of-way, provide unique opportunities for parks. These corridors features they mirror, and provide the basis for a network of for space areas. While these lands are most often used for passive r turf areas, and picnic tables may be provided, depending upon th park located along the bayfront and there is also a linear park and Spruce Avenues. The largest linear park in South San Francis the South San Francisco to the San Bruno BART Station. It is a 3 pedestrian trail that is a 10-foot-wide asphalt pathway with 2-foot School playground facilities are also available for public use. Agreement with the School District for the use of eleven parks a recreation programs. School playgrounds account for approximatel space area in South San Francisco, measuring between 3 and 11 acres enhance t Recreational open space is most often used for passive recreatio res provide numerous opportunities for unique open space areas, such as the has taken advantage of these opportunities, and is continuing to bayfront and the hills. 4.9.2Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations applicable to parkland or recre State There are no state regulations regarding parkland or recreationa project. Local Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan Under the direction of its 1990 and 1997 Park, Recreation, and O City is addressing specific deficiencies in park and recreationa on improving four existing park sites; Buri Buri Park, Francisco and Elkwood Park. The City has recently selected a consultant an new Park and Recreation Master Plan. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.9-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Orange Memorial Park Master Plan (1990, 2007 Update) The existing Master Plan establishes a vision and development go one of the oldest and largest parks in South San Francisco and o Master Plan was updated when property adjacent to the park was p increasing the size of Orange Memorial Park to 36 acres. The Mas for the adjacent property. South San Francisco BART Linear Park Master Plan (2003) The South San Francisco BART Linear Park, now called Centennial bridge between residents, commuters, and recreationalists within San Francisco and San Bruno BART Stations. The Master Plan propo entire stretch of the linear park. Construction was completed in South San Francisco General Plan The South San Francisco General Plan establishes goals, policies, and programs that serve as a decis making tool to guide future growth and development in the City. South San Francisco Municipal Code The South San Francisco Municipal Code establishes permissible limits and permit objective measurement of nuisances, hazards, and objectionable conditions as well as ensu control measures to protect the community from nuisances, hazard Title 20, Chapter 20.300 Title 20 (Zoning), Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards) stat J. Air Contaminants. Uses, activities, and processes shall not opera excessive dust, fumes, smoke, or particulate matter. 1. Compliance. Sources of air pollution shall comply with rules id Protection Agency (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40), the C Board, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2. f the permit with the Planning Division within 30 days of permit approval. Title 15, Chapter 15.08, Appendix Section 3309.13 Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), Chapter 15.08 (California Build3309.13 (Hours) states: No grading or any work in connection therewith, including, but n of earth or other materials and the delivery, servicing or opera conducted between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. within all other areas Saturday, Sunday or Municipal holidays at any time without prior Public Works. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.9-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Title 19, Chapter 19.24 Regulations for dedication of land, payment of fees, or both, fo can be found in Sections 19.24.040 through 19.24.120. General Plan Park Proposals The General Plan proposes several new parks to meet the needs of as linear parks along old railroad spurs and above the undergrou Trail, which was completed in May 2009. While some of these prop in th redevelopment. Guiding Policies: Parks and Recreation Policy 5.1-G-1 Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents Policy 5.1-G-3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and ope improve access to existing facilities where feasible. Policy 5.1-G-4 Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure i along existing public utility and transportation rights-of-way. Implementing Policies: Parks and Recreation Policy 5.1-I-1 Maintain the PROS Master Plan as the implementing tool for Genek and recreation policies and proposals. Park proposals and standards in the General Plan should be refle PROS Master Plan. Policy 5.1-I-2 Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neigh per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acre of parkland per 1,000 new e be located in employment areas. Policy 5.1-I-3 Prefer in-lieu fees to dedications, unless sites offered for de features and accessibility similar in comparison to sites shown 1. Policy 5.1-I-4 Develop new parks in locations and sizes shown on Figure 5-1. The General Plan proposes several new parks in existing residenti employment areas that would meet this need, as indicated in Tabl5.1-4. These include: Residential Areas Southwood School (Baden Continuation High School): This site pro ideal opportunity for the City to jointly use all or a part of t Measuring 4 acres, the site is located near El Camino Real and i California Golf and Country Club. This site is in an area with par deficiency and located within a half-mile of several new residen development sites in the El Camino Real corridor. A Head Start p facility could be included on the site. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.9-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Downtown Park: A two-acre park in the Downtown area would provid important aesthetic benefits to the area. Benches, paths, and an should be included. Although a specific location for this park h designated in the General Plan Diagram, this should be establish future through the PROS Master Plan process. Employment Areas Railroad Avenue Linear Park. This rail-to-trail conversion, stretching from U.S. 101 to East Grand Avenue would significantly improve access 101 area and the bayfront. Measuring 7.5 acres in size, this par ample width to support the placement benches, paved pathways, and exer stations. This park is part of the Railroad Avenue Extension pro Policy 4.2-I-2 of the Plan. Lindenville Linear Park. Another rail-to-trail conversion, this park measures 2.0 acres in size and is located between South Maple Avenue and Tanf Avenue near the City boundary with San Bruno. This park should p picnic facilities and benches for nearby office workers. Policy 5.1-I-5 Use the PROS Master Plan process to achieve additional parkland necessary, to meet the residential parkland need at General Plan b Policy 5.1-I-6 Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Pacific Gas and Electr and the SFPUC to lease and develop linear parks on existing publi transportation rights-of-way in the city, where appropriate and Policy 5.1-I-7 Develop a network of linkages, as shown in Figure 5-1 [of the G connect existing and proposed parks and open space, school facilities an significant features to the greatest extent possible. Policy 5.1-I-9 Review the current regulations for the dedication of parkland i ensure that requirements are adequate to meet the standards of the Ge at Plan buildout. Consistency Analysis The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan is i mix of projects that combine residential and non-residential use Specific Plan is designed to be consistent with the policies containe related to open space, parks, and recreation. New projects const contained within the Specific Plan will provide for new private private landscaping. Because the overall project is designed to parks, and recreation resources within the study area, implement conflict with the identified policies. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.9-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation 4.9.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Impacts on parks and recreation services are considered signific employment, or building area would require the need for new park acceptable service ratios. The City of South San Francisco has a requires parkland dedication or in-lieu fees equal to 3 acres per 1,000 residents when establishing futu park services is evaluated based on this General Plan criterion. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have recreation if it would do any of the following: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would oc Include recreational facilities or require the construction or e that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project increase the use of existing neighbo other recreational facilities such that substantial physical det would occur or be accelerated? Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not increase existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational f such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility wou accelerated. This impact would be . Implementation of the proposed project could accommodate up to 135 dwelling units, approximately 780,000 square feet (sf) of commercial uses, 21,000 sf of industrial usesf of new office/research and development uses within the study area. Theref generate additional demand for parkland in the City. The existing parks-to-population ratio in the City is 3.4, which would appear to exce goal of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents, although closer analysis residents of development parkland is actually available. Implementatio in an increase in City residents up to 4,248 persons, further reducing the parks-to-population ratio. However, the Specific Plan would add a network of new open space development within the study area may be required to pay in-lieu While the increased population would result in increased use of only 6.7 percent of total City population. Therefore, it would n South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.9-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation result in substantial physical deterioration of existing park fa (Population/Housing), the expected population increase resulting Plan would only slightly exceed the overall City projections for a General Plan Amendment as part of the proposed project, would in the General Plan. In addition to requirements for new residential development, thepark standards for new employees generated by proposed development. G generate approximately 2,400 new jobs, the General Plan requirem employees would necessitate the provision of 1.2 acres of new parks an implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. In general, it is expected t study area would satisfy most if not all of the park and open sp More specifically, Orange Memorial Park and Centennial Way, alon open space, averaging 3.4 acres per 1,000 residents provides a wide ra for the residents of the City. In addition to Orange Memorial Park variety of City, County, educational, and private recreational f Table 4.9-1. As part of the Specific Plan, open space would be provided in th courtyards and plazas to serve residents and employees within th guidelines, developers of specific projects within the Specific and streetscape improvements in the design of their projects. Th landscaped medians, sidewalks, pedestrian-oriented street lights groundcover, and other amenities. Additionally, the payment of p be allocated to fund the acquisition and/or development of futur with increased use of public facilities. Due to the variety of existing recreational opportunities within the City, the recreational amenities that are included as part of the Specific Plan, and the fact that some future project developers may be required provide new parks and open space or pay in-lieu fees to proposed projects, it is expected that new residents would not s neighborhood and regional facilities such that substantial physi occur or be accelerated. Adherence to existing land dedication a applicable PROS Master Plan regulations, as well as the on-site the Specific Plan, would ensure that parks and open space are ac expanded as future residential projects are constructed in the s . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.9-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation Threshold Would the project include recreational facilities or r expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse environment? Impact 4.9-2 Development pursuant to the Specific Plan could include re facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreatio, but these specific components would not have an adverse physical on the environment not already included in the overall analysis Plan impacts. The impact for any recreational component would be . Development under the Specific Plan could include recreational c parks, or other recreational amenities, the construction of whic However, the analysis of project construction included in the te considers all potential types of development, including construc on a program level, all impacts related to construction of proje have been analyzed, and no separate impacts as a result of recre projects implemented under the proposed Specific Plan would be r local regulations and all mitigation measures identified in this additional environmental review if impacts of a specific project program-level EIR. However, as noted above, it is expected that would be adequate to meet the needs generated by development in would be . 4.9.4Cumulative Impacts The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative recreation Francisco. The analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative gro represented by development of the projects within the City of So2 (Cumulative ProjectsPlanned East of 101 Development by 2035) in Chapter 3. Threshold Would the project increase the use of existing neighbo other recreational facilities such that substantial physical det would occur or be accelerated? Project development, in combination with other cumulative mixed- within the City of South San Francisco, would directly increase number of those employed within the City of South San Francisco. employment would generate a higher demand for recreational facil the parkland standard for the creation of future parkland is a m 1,000 residents and 0.5 acre for every 1,000 new employees. The existi the City is 3.4 acres per 1,000 residents, above the minimum standard existing facilities would be adequate to accommodate increased deman projects also would be anticipated to include parks or recreatio South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.9-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation offset population growth. In addition, new development would be pay in-lieu fees to support future park development. recreational facilities in the City. While the Specific Plan doe some future development under the proposed project would be expe parks, or recreational facilities. In addition, given the adequa opportunities in the City, and the General Plan requirement that of park and recreational facilities for future residents and emp parks and recreational facilities would be . Threshold Would the project include recreational facilities or r expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse environment? Development of the Specific Plan along with other related projec could result in the development of new recreational facilities, significant effect on the environment, particularly with regard construction, as the City of South San Francisco is located in a Improvements to existing recreational facilities could also resu ordinances and limitation of construction hours as contained in Section 3309.13, it is likely that the development of most new rec less-than-significant levels. Cumulative developments could ultimat parkland, either through land dedication, the payment of fees to both. As with development within the Specific Plan, all feasible implemented to reduce or avoid significant construction-related short term. As a result, while a cumulative impact related to th not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this impact is . 4.9.5References BMS Design Group. 2013. South San Francisco Downtown Specific Plan, September. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Av General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, May. . n.d. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?frames=on (accessed April 7, 2014). San Mateo, County of. 2013. San Mateo County Parks Strategic Plan, March. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.9-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.9 Recreation [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.9-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic 4.10TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC This section evaluates potential transportation and circulation which may result from implementing the South San Francisco Downt (Specific Plan or proposed project). The evaluation of environme focuses on the potential transportation and circulation impacts transportation concerns, including vehicle traffic circulation, pedestrian circulation. Mitigation measures to reduce or elimina project are included, where feasible and necessary. 4.10.1Environmental Setting Implementation of the Specific Plan would include a mix of new r study area. The Specific Plan would include new land uses in two locat area includes all of Downtown, and the adjacent residential and m Boulevard and north of Railroad Avenue. This area is bounded by Avenue, Maple Avenue, Leo Circle, and Airport Boulevard. The Eas all of the land uses east of Airport Boulevard and south of Rail from the West area by the Caltrain tracks and are more directly of the Caltrain tracks. This area is bounded by East Grand Avenu st Boulevard, Linden Avenue, 1 Lane, and Airport Boulevard. Caltrain operates 50 miles of commuter rail between San Francisc trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods, wi currently located below grade, just east of Dubuque Avenue on th The proposed project would extend the station to the intersectio This section includes descriptions of the scope of analysis, methods for multi-modal transportation and circulation issues, assumptio circulation conditions, and regulatory context. Transportation a occur with implementation of the Specific Plan are analyzed and section, as described below. This section includes a description of the study locations, the methods, existing transportation conditions, and the regulatory 4.10-1 (Study Intersections and Freeway Segments) illustrates the study area and its road system. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Study Locations The recommended analysis locations (study intersections and free facilities) were selected based on the potential of the project on important transportation facilities, based on local traffic p engineering judgment. This analysis evaluates the impacts of the propo facilities, including sixteen intersections and eleven freeway s below and shown on Figure 4.10-1. All study intersections are controlled by a traffic signal unles below. Study Intersections 1. Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue 2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard 3. Miller Avenue/Spruce Avenue 4. Grand Avenue Overcrossing/Dubuque Avenue 5. East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue Overcrossing 6. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard 7. Grand Avenue/Spruce Avenue 8. Grand Avenue/Maple Avenue 9. Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue 10. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard 11. East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way/US-101 NB off-ramp (Side-Street Y 12. Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue 13. Baden Avenue/Airport Boulevard 14. San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard 15. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard 16. US-101 NB Ramps/Wonder Color Lane/South Airport Boulevard Freeway Segments 1. US-101 North of Oyster Point Boulevard 2. US-101 Oyster Point Boulevard to Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue 3. US-101 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue to South Airport Boulevard 4. US-101 South Airport Boulevard to I-380 On-Ramps 1. Northbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard 2. Northbound on-ramp from South Airport Boulevard 3. Southbound on-ramp from Produce Avenue Off-Ramps 1. Southbound off-ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue 2. Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way 3. Southbound off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue 4. Northbound off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-2 100027545 | Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Analysis Scenarios Study intersection and the freeway segment operations were evalu during the time periods when traffic volumes are highest, i.e., evening traffic is highest between 7:00 to 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00 . The operations of these facilities AMPM were evaluated for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions: Existing traffic volumes on local roadways were obtained from c collected in 2008 for the East of US-101 Traffic Study (TJKM 2011) supplemented with counts collected in 2013. Several 2008 counts were cross referenced wit better represent current levels of traffic. Mainline freeway vol California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Performance M database (2013), and ramp volumes were obtained from the East ofUS-101 Traffic Study and newly collected intersection counts where applicable. Existing Plus Project Conditions: Existing traffic volumes plus new traffic from the project. Cumulative No Project Conditions: Projected conditions in 2035 without the project. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions: Projected conditions in 2035 with the project. Table 4.10-1 (Land Use Assumptions for the Specific Plan) shows the land u project for the West and East portions of the study area. As all field observations, numbers have been rounded for conservative a summarized to match the categories used in trip generation calcu Residential land use includes all single family and multi-family Office/R&D land use includes all office, and half of business co research and development land use. Commercial land use includes all general retail and hotel (exist commercial. Other includes institutional, public and industrial The trip generation is calculated separately for the West and Ea mixes will have different trip generation characteristics. The West p Downtown, and the adjacent residential and mixed uses located we Railroad Avenue. The East portion of the study area includes all Boulevard and south of Railroad Avenue, most of which are separa Caltrain tracks and are more directly connected to the local str West and East sub-areas are shown on Figure 4.10-5A (External Trip Distribution [West]) and Figure 4.10-5B (External Trip Distribution [East]), below. While these land separately for West and East sub-areas in order to calculate trip ge across the full study area road network for the traffic analysis City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-1 Land Use Assumptions for the Specific Plan Land Use Category Existing Proposed New Development Total (Existing + Project) a West Residential (du) 1,440 1,435 2,842 Office and R&D (ksf) 219 133 352 Commercial/Other (ksf) 1,182 255 1,437 East Residential (du) 0 33 33 Office and R&D (ksf) 136 1,375 1,511 Commercial/Other (ksf) 738 225 962 SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity ManualSpecial Report 209. du = dwelling unit; ksf = thousand square feet a.Land use categories have been summarized as follows: residentialfamily and multi-family housing; office/R&D land use includes all office, and half of business co use; commercial land use includes all general retail and hotel (mmercial. Other includes institutional, public and industrial land uses. Analysis Methods Evaluation of traffic conditions on local streets involves analy intersection operations, as intersections represent the location constrained. Intersection and freeway mainline segment operation calculations. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative descriptio the roadway facility has excess capacity and vehicles experience lit volume of vehicles exceeds the capacity, resulting in long queues and eE -LOS -t signalized intersections operating at LOS F, for example, drivers may have proceed. The sixteen study intersections and eleven freeway segments were hours. Study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capac and the Synchro traffic analysis software. Synchro is commonly u per the HCM guidelines. Mainline US-101 segments were analyzed using volume to capacity ratios per HCM 2010 methodology. Each method is briefly described below. US-101 ramp capacity analysis was analyzed by comparing the volume to the Caltrans maximum accepta HCM 2000 methodology was chosen for intersection analysis based maintain consistency with adopted guidelines and previous studie 2010 methodology includes multimodal LOS, which has not yet been the City of South San Francisco. HCM 2010 methodology was selected recent guidance from Caltrans, the controlling operator of US-101. Vehicle Queuing at Intersections th Chapter 16 of the HCM 2000 outlines a methodology for calculating the 95 percentile queues at th signalized intersections. The 95 percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups for each moveme South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic th only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the 95 percentile vehicle queues were analyzed for study intersections in the vicinity of th software program has been used to determine 95 percentile vehicle queues in accordance with the HCM 2000 methodology. Signalized Intersections The method from HCM Chapter 16 bases signalized intersection ope experienced by motorists traveling through it. Control delay incorpo deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and sig delay. Table 4.10-2 (Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria) summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections according Table 4.10-2 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Average Control Level of Delay per Vehicle Description Service (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle le B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression alonger cycle lengths. Individual C cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorabl D high volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, l E Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is consdelay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due F > 80 very long cycle lengths. SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity ManualSpecial Report 209 (2000). Unsignalized Intersections Traffic conditions at the unsignalized study intersections (stop intersections) were evaluated using the method from 2000 HCM Cha17. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (meas controlled movement or movement that must yield the right-of-way intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire in and corresponding LOS for the entire intersection are reported. the movement with the highest delay and corresponding LOS is rep4.10-3 (Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria) summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignaliz intersections. Generally, the delay ranges for each LOS are lowe because drivers expect to have less delay at unsignalized inters City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) Service A Little or no traffic delays B Short traffic delays 15 C Average traffic delays > 15 25 D Long traffic delays > 5 E Very long traffic delays > 350 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50 SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity ManualSpecial Report 209 (2000). Freeway Mainline Operations Freeway segments on US-101 are analyzed using volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. The capacities of the study freeway facilities were obtained from the 2010 HCM. Accord segment with minimum 12-foot travel lane widths, 6-foot shoulder clearance, a traffic stream composed entirely of passenger cars, level terrain, and a driver population composed principally of regul 2,400 vehicles per hour per lane. However, segments of US-101 through the study area have many features that reduce the capacity flow rates from the ideal, inc Heavy vehicles, including trucks, buses, and recreational vehicl 6 percent of vehicles on US-101 Locations with short merge distances for on-ramps Interchange spacing substantially less than 2 miles Through the Specific study area, US-101 is four lanes in each direction. Table 4.10-4 (Freeway Segment LOS Criteria) summarizes the relationship between v/c and LOS for freeway segm Freeway Ramp Operations Freeway on- and off-ramps on US-101 are analyzed by comparing the ramp volume to the Caltrans maximum acceptable limit for ramp capacity, which is 1,500 vehic 3,000 vehicles per hour for two-lane off-ramps, 2,000 vehicles per hour vehicles per hour for two-lane on-ramps, as outlined in the 2010 4.10.2Existing Conditions This section describes the existing transportation system in the study area encompassing the project site. First, the major components of the transportation system are des peak-hour traffic volumes and lane configurations for the study the operational analysis results (LOS calculations). Existing fr presented. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-4 Freeway Segment LOS Criteria Level of Maximum Volume- Description Service to-Capacity Ratio Free flow operations with average operating speeds at, or above, the speed limit. Vehicles are A 0.30 unimpeded in their ability to maneuver. Free flow operations with average operating speeds at the speed B 0.50 restricted. Minor incidents cause some local deterioration in operations. Stable operations with average operating speeds near the speed l C 0.71 noticeably restricted. Minor incidents cause substantial local d Speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows. Freedom to maneuver is more noticeab D 0.89 restricted. Minor incidents create queuing. Operations at capacity. Vehicle spacing causes little room to ma miles per hour (mph). Any disruption to the traffic stream can cause a wave of delay that propagates E 1.00 throughout the upstream traffic flow. Minor incidents cause seri extensive queuing. Maneuverability is extremely limited. Operations with breakdowns in vehicle flow. Volumes exceed capacity causing bottlenecks and queue F N/A formation. SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual (2010). a. Freeway mainline LOS based on a 65 mph free-flow speed. Public Transit System Public transit services in the study area include local buses, e ferry service, as shown on Figure 4.10-2 (Existing and Proposed Transit System). This figure shows bot existing and proposed transit service for the project study area. A through the area are commuters who use the Caltrain station or c East of US-101 employers via employer shuttles. Caltrain Caltrain operates 50 miles of commuter rail between San Francisc trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. Th Station is currently located at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. It is located just across the highway from th Francisco, and at the west transition to the East of US-101 area. This station is located within Zone 1 of the Caltrain commuter rail corridor, just over 9 miles from the in San Francisco. It serves local and limited stop trains and provides a Francisco origins, East of US-101 area destinations, and commuters connecting from the newly established ferry service at Oyster Point Ferry Terminal. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limite 23 southbound weekday trains. Weekday peak commute headways are betes, with more frequent service for AM northbound and PM southbound trips. periods at least one train per hour provides connections to all additional trains provide limited service to major hub stations San Francisco Caltrain Station provides weekday service from 5:4 to 12:00 midnight, with 60-minute AM City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic headways during off-peak times. Weekend trains run with 60-minut approximately 8:00 to 12:00 midnight on Saturdays and 9:00 to 10:00 on Sundays. AMAMPM Travel times between South San Francisco and San Francisco are a20 minutes and travel times between South San Francisco and San Jose are approx75 minutes for local and Francisco Station. Currently, approximately 360 passengers board Francisco Caltrain station on weekdays (just under 1 percent of total). More passengers get off the train at South San Francisco dur board at South San Francisco during evening commute hours. Weekd year to year, and has increased approximately 10 percent since 2 Approximately 50 daily passengers board with bikes. Lockable, sheltered b adjacent to the station platform, and bus and shuttle connection. The immediate 0.5-mile area surrounding the South San Francisco Caltrain Station land uses, including commercial, industrial, institutional, publ nearly all of the South San Francisco Priority Development Area land uses that serve as origins and destinations for Caltrain pa Most of the immediately adjacent land uses surrounding the stati density commercial office park and light industrial. Genentech, 2 miles east of the station at the bayshore, and many other employ development between the station and the waterfront. Employer spo employment destinations east of the station and other commuter c are available to individual riders not associated with sponsor e Bus Service Bus service in South San Francisco is provided by SamTrans. SamT Downtown South San Francisco: SamTrans 38 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue intersectio Harbor, Colma BART station, and San Bruno BART station. This line prov northbound service between 6:00 and 7:00 , and limited southbound service between AMAM 4:45 and 7:15 . PMPM SamTrans 131 stops at the Linden Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection, and Downtown South San Francisco, South San Francisco BART station, and Daly provides service in both directions between 5:45 and 10:45 with 15-minute headways AMPM during peak weekday hours. SamTrans 133 stops at the Linden Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection and connects to Downtown South San Francisco and San Bruno BART station. This li directions between 6:00 and 7:00 with 30-minute headways during peak weekday hours. AMPM South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-10 SPRUCE 100027545 | Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic SamTrans 292 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue, and Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue intersections and co the north and Hillsdale/San Mateo to the south. This line provid between 4:00 and 2:00 , with 20- to 30-minute headways during peak weekday hours. AMAM SamTrans 397 stops at the Airport Boulevard/Baden Avenue intersection, an Francisco to the north and Palo Alto to the south. This line pro:00 AM and 6:00 with 60-minute headways. AM Additional commuter bus service is provided by Peninsula Allianc. These provide commuter connections between the Caltrain Station and East of US-101 empl Oyster Point Shuttle connects the Caltrain station to Oyster poi Avenue. This line provides service during peak commute hours, be6:30 and 10:00 , AMAM and between 3:00 and 6:00 with 30-minute headways. PMPM Utah-Grand Shuttle connects the Caltrain station to East Grand A line provides service during peak commute hours, between 5:30 and 9:30 , and between AMAM 4:00 and 6:15 with 30-minute headways. PMPM BART Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) operates regional rail in the Bay International Airport and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the sou Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and F stations closest to the South San Francisco Caltrain station are Huntington Avenue east of El Camino Real, and the South San Fran Road and McLellan Drive. Both stations are located within 3 mile provides service from the stations to Downtown South San Francisco. BAR minute headways during peak hours and 20-minute headways during Ferry Services In addition to the regional train and BART service, and local bu South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, which provides commuter serv Oakland/Alameda terminal. There are three morning departures fro Francisco, and two evening departures from South San Francisco t shuttles open to the public that connect the South San Francisco Oyster Point area office buildings during the commute hours. Bicycle System The City of South San Francisco adopted its Citywide bicycle mas the plan was to expand the bicycle network to make it easier and City. The plan also had a goal of encouraging bicycling by promo demand management ordinances and with local committees, such as t Committee. Bicycles are an important component of any cCities throughout the Bay Area continue to experience strong growth in bicycling a City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Francisco has a network of signed bicycle routes consisting of s, including San Mateo County Bikeway System (San Mateo County 2000 are based on Caltrans standards, which provide for three distinc described below, and shown in Figure 4.10-3 (Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities): Class I Bikeway (Multi-Use Path): Class I bikeways have independent rights-of-way physically separated from vehicle travel lanes. Motorized vehicle activity to 12 feet wide. >Grand Avenue has a Class II bike path that extends from Poletti Way, crosses Grand Avenue and ending at Harbor Way. This path connects to the Cl begin on Gateway Boulevard south of Grand Avenue. This path is physic the roadway and sidewalk by a landscape strip; however, at signa must use crosswalks with pedestrians. Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Class II bike lanes are on-street lanes dedicated and demarcated for bicycle travel. A bicycle lane is a portion of a road or hig signing, and pavement markings to provide preferential or exclus Bike lanes are typically four to six feet wide. Due to their mul roadway maintenance is particularly important to improve rider s parking lane can be striped to allow a shared parking lane and b in areas where a full bicycle lane is not feasible; however, it means of providing a bicycle lane are possible. Numbered routes County Bikeway System. >Airport Boulevard is part of Bicycle Route 15 and has Class II bike lanes in both that begin north of Miller Avenue. These lanes connect to the Class III Miller Avenue and Linden Avenue. >Gateway Boulevard is designated as Bicycle Route 5 and has Class II bike lanes in directions which begin south of Grand Avenue and extend to South Airport Boulevar >Grand Avenue has Class II bike lanes in both directions that begin west of S These lanes connect to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue >Railroad Avenue has a Class II bike lane in the eastbound direction that extend Spruce Avenue to Maple Avenue, after which it becomes a Class III bicyc sharrows. This lane connects to the Class III bicycle route on Spru >Hillsdale Boulevard is designated as Bicycle Route 82 and has Class II bike lanes i directions that begin west of Spruce Avenue to Sister Cities Boulevar to the Class III bicycle route on Spruce Avenue. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-14 SPRUCE 100027545 | Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): Class III bikeways provide for a right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or mo located along roadways where dedicated bicycle lanes cannot fit on a low volume street), but where providing continuity in a bic important. A shared-e outside lane on a Class III route to show the suggested path of travel for bicyclists. This is oft on-street parking, in order to encourage cyclists to ride a safe d Class III bikeways are not marked with sharrows, but are designated local bicycle routes. Numbered rout County Bikeway System. >San Mateo Avenue is part of Bicycle Route 15 and is a Class III bicycle route wi sharrow markings. The route extends south from Airport Boulevard Avenue, connecting to the Class III bicycle route on Linden Aven >Linden Avenue is designated as a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends south from Airport Boulevard to San Mateo Avenue, Class III route on that roadway. >Spruce Avenue is designated as a Class III bicycle route without sharrow markings. The route extends south from Hillsdale Boulevard to El Camino Real. Class II bicycle lanes on Hillsdale Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and Railr Class III routes on Hillsdale Boulevard, Park Way, and Commercial Aven >Hillsdale Boulevard is designated as Bicycle Route 82 and is a Class III bicycle ro without sharrow markings between Spruce Avenue and Linden Avenue. The r Hillsdale Avenue connects the Class III routes on these streets. >Park Way is designated as a Class III bicycle route without sharrow mark extends west from Spruce Avenue to Orange Avenue, where it connects to route on that roadway. >Miller Avenue is designated as a Class III bicycle route without sharrow mark extends west from Airport Boulevard to Chestnut Avenue, passing by City connects to Class II bicycle lanes on Airport Boulevard and Clas Avenue and Spruce Avenue. >Commercial Avenue is designated as Bicycle Route 80 and is a Class III bicycle ro without sharrow markings. The route extends west from Linden Avenue to Avenue, connecting to other Class III routes on Linden Avenue an >Railroad Avenue is designated as a Class III bicycle route with sharrow markings. The route extends west from Linden Avenue to Orange Avenue, connecting to Linden Avenue, Spruce Avenue, and Orange Avenue. Bicycle access improvements are proposed throughout the study ar Francisco Bicycle Master Plan and Specific Plan. Proposed improv potential projects in and adjacent to the study area are include4.10-3. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Pedestrian Facilities West of US-101, the Downtown area has a dense street grid and generally good w provided on all streets. Grand Avenue has several special pedest crosswalks, special pavement markings at crosswalks, curb extens make the street more attractive. Grand Avenue also has cut-ins f narrow sidewalks (e.g., Baden Avenue) or unmaintained sidewalks.a Pedestrian Master Plan in February 2014 to identify and prioriti improvements throughout the City, as well as to provide general East of US-101, the larger street grid makes walking less desirable because ro long. Additionally, Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue/South Airpor pedestrian connections between the west and east sides of US-101 in the study area. Streets east of US-101 do not always have sidewalks, and in some locations, sidewalks street. Additionally, many of the wider streets in the East of US-101 area have long pedestrian crossings that increase pedestrian delay at intersections. Some streets in101 area (Poletti, Grand, Gateway) have side paths that could be used for pedestrian activ marked or maintained. Pedestrian access improvements are proposed in the area covered under the South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. The plan c as establishing a Downtown pedestrian-priority zone, making pede Downtown lanes and completing the street grid to reduce block le Caltrain station. Downtown improvements include widening of side crossings, pedestrian-scaled lighting, street trees and planting signage and public art. The Pedestrian-Friendly and Accessible D provide detailed guidance, and principle and specific intersecti Specific Plan. Pedestrian-priority streets and alleys and the pe connecting the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection to th Figure 4.10-3. Roadway Network Regional auto access to the study area is provided by US-101, I-280, and SR-82 (El Camino Real) while local access is provided by several arterials and collector stre The South San Francisco General Plan defines major and minor art. Major arterials located within the study area include: Grand Avenue (e Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, Produce Avenue, and South Airport and Sister Cities Boulevard are located outside of the study are within the station study area are: Linden Avenue, Grand Avenue ( Avenue (south of Grand Avenue), Harbor Way and Forbes Boulevard. South San Francisco collectors connect arterials with local streets. Col are Miller Avenue, Spruce Avenue (north of Grand Avenue), Baden , South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Commercial Avenue, Park Way, Maple Avenue between Park Way and G and Mitchell Avenue. Local streets provide direct access to abutting properties. The US-101 is primarily local streets, and several local streets connect maUS-101. Select roadways in the study area are described in further detail below. US-101 is the major freeway through eastern San Mateo County between S bisects the study area. It is the primary north/south route conn San Francisco. South San Francisco has multiple on- and off-ramp access to specific neighborhoods that are only accessible via circu US-101 is typically congested in both directions during both peak peri from San Francisco and the Silicon Valley. Grand Avenue is the Downtown east/west routes through the City. Within the Downtown area west of US-101, Grand Avenue has one travel lane in each direction with on-street angled parking on both sides of the str to the US-101 Northbound on-ramp located at Airport Boulevard. East of US-101, Grand Avenue widens to six lanes (three in each direction) and crosses under US-101 and over the Caltrain right-of-way. Grand Avenue continues east to the Bay. SamTrans operates along Avenue. Previous streetscape improvements have made Grand Avenue pedestrian-focused commercial Downtown with decorative sidewalks landscaping, and pedestrian-scale lighting. West of Spruce Avenu has Class II bike lanes in both directions. However, front-in an volumes (particularly eastbound between Linden and Airport) make Grand uncomfortable for bicyclists because front-in angled parking lim spaces and bicyclists vying for limited right-of-way with vehicl Airport Boulevard is a major north/south arterial route through South San FranciscUS-101. North of Grand Avenue, Airport Boulevard has two travel lanes inII bicycle lanes. There is on-street parking on the west side of the street and several routes along Airport Boulevard. Northbound traffic can u US-101 on-ramps at Grand Avenue and north of Sister Cities Boulevard. Airport Boulevard has three travel lanes in each direction and n generally much wider in this segment. Although the bicycle maste segment, they have not been striped. The higher speed traffic (3 make bicycling less attractive on this segment. Airport Boulevard con Produce Avenue, where it turns east to become South Airport Boul - t-of-way. Airport Boulevard is currently a designated truck route through the City; however, removing this designation and remove trucks from Airport BoulevaUS-101 off-ramp at Miller Avenue. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-19 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Spruce Avenue is a north/south collector street north of Grand Avenue and as Grand Avenue. It provides access from residential areas in South industrial area and El Camino Real corridor to the south. North one travel lane in each direction and on-street parking is allow areas. South of Railroad Avenue, Spruce Avenue has two travel la parking is prohibited. Spruce Avenue is classified as a Class II markings. Maple Avenue is a north/south, two-lane collector street one block west of L this segment, it is classified as a local street. It provides no San Francisco between Linden Avenue and Spruce Avenue. On-street of the street. Linden Avenue is a two-lane north/south minor arterial. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street in most areas. South of Grand Avenue, Linden Avenue p industrial area and the City of San Bruno. North of Grand Avenue small office type uses. SamTrans operates on Linden Avenue north Linden Avenue has a wide double right-turn lane to allow vehicle right turn. This makes the crosswalk longer and the eastern sidewalk narrer. Linden Avenue is a Class III bicycle route (without sharrow markings). Dubuque Avenue is a north/south local street that parallels US-101 to the west in each direction and one left-turn lane for southbound traffic. South San Francisco Caltrain Station from Grand Avenue to the so to the north. Poletti Way is a one-way, northbound local street that parallels the Caltra Gateway Boulevard to the east. It has two travel lanes and on-st Gateway Boulevard is a north/south major arterial that provides access to office Avenue and industrial uses south of Grand Avenue. Gateway Boulevh direction with a planted median. On-street parking is prohibited lanes in both directions between South Airport Boulevard and Grand A Miller Avenue is an east/west collector street one block north of Grand Avenue route to City Hall and the new Miller Avenue parking structure. Avenue, there are very few driveways, and parking is limited bet. Sidewalks are generally narrow, particularly along the south side of Spruce Avenue, making the pedestrian environment less attractive ened the sidewalk and improved the streetscape somewhat; however, parking removal was Miller Avenue is also classified as a Class III bicycle route (without sharrow markings). In general, the wider vehicle lanes allow for more space for bicyclists; however and the speed of traffic generally makes cycling less attractive South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-20 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Baden Avenue is an east/west road one block south of Grand Avenue that is cl street west of Linden Avenue and as a local street east of Linden Aven and Linden Avenue, Baden Avenue has two travel lanes in each dir this block, the southern sidewalk is narrow (4 feet). This block Linden Avenue to Airport Boulevard to access the northbound on-ramp a Linden Avenue, Baden has one lane and on-street parking in each is predominately residential in character. San Mateo Avenue is a north/south local street that connects South San Francisco industrial area via Airport Boulevard. San Mateo Avenue has one street parking is allowed. San Mateo Avenue is classified as a C markings. Produce Avenue is a short north/south major arterial that becomes a SouthboundUS-101 on-ramp south of the intersection of Airport Boulevard. Produce Avenue h one northbound travel lane, with few on-street parking areas. Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Traffic count locations are illustrated in Figure 4.10-4A (Existing Intersection Peak-Hour Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control Devices). Figure 4.10-4A and Figure 4.10-4B (Existing Intersection Peak-Hour Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control Devic vehicle turning movement counts, lane geometries, and intersecti The counts were conducted during typical weekdays (Tuesday throu October 2013 while schools were in session. The peak hour reflec highest traffic volumes for that intersection, typically occurri9:00 and 4:006:00 . AMPM The counts collected in 2008 and 2013 are shown in Appendix E (T study intersection was analyzed using existing lane configuratio provided by the City of South San Francisco or Caltrans. Existing Intersection Operations The City of South San Francisco defines LOS A through D as accep unacceptable. The following guidelines have been outlined in the City Plan (City of South San Francisco 1999): Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector str Accept LOS E or F after finding that there is no feasible and practical way level of service, and the uses resulting in the lower level of s benefit. Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain of BART station or a ferry terminal from LOS standards. The results of the existing intersection LOS analysis are presen LOS Results) and are included in Appendix E (Traffic Data, LOS Works. The table shows that City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-21 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, the following intersection curr (LOS E or F): 12. Baden Avenue/Linden AvenueLOS F during the PM peak hour Table 4.10-5 Existing Intersection LOS Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Control Delay LOS Delay LOS aa 1.Miller Ave/Linden Ave Signal 21.2 C 34.9 C 2.Miller Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 28.2 C 19.3 B 3.Miller Ave/Spruce Ave Signal 18.3 B 20.0 B 4.Grand Ave/Dubuque Ave Signal 5.9 A 4.2 A 5.Grand Ave/E. Grand Ave Signal 19.5 B 16.8 B 6.E. Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd Signal 33.5 C 36.0 D 7.Grand Ave/Spruce Ave Signal 16.5 B 19.2 B 8.Grand Ave/Maple Ave Signal 9.3 A 9.7 A 9.Grand Ave/Linden Ave Signal 11.5 B 12.7 B 10. Grand Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 40.7 D 44.6 D 11. E. Grand Ave/US-101 NB off-ramp/Poletti Way SSS 18.3 C 10.7 B 12. Baden Ave/Linden Ave Signal 39.2 D 0.92 F 13. Baden Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 26.7 C 29.6 C 14. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 37.1 D 51.2 D 15. South Airport Blvd/Gateway Blvd Signal 38.4 D 42.5 D 16. S. Airport/US-101 NB ramps/Wondercolor Lane Signal 30.4 C 33.3 C SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = unacceptable LOS; SSS = side-street stop a.For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weight per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled intersection, the delay shown is the wors-operating approach delay. For intersections performing at LOS F, Volume/Capacity ratio for the overall intersection is shown in parentheses. The poor intersection operations at the intersection of Baden Av peak hour is primarily due to the high westbound left-turn traff this intersection. In addition to this intersection, several intersections operate LOS C or D conditions are typical during peak hours and considered a Plan, occasionally traffic operates at near-capacity conditions note that the LOS standard is calculated based on the average ve over the course of the peak hour at the study intersections. The operate worse than the total intersection at different times of and queues to develop on some approaches but not others. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-22 59 (57)347 (63) 66 (164)294 (108) 25 (16)56 (95) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 9 (5)272 (73) 73 (85)110 (344) 19 (24)45 (212) 791 (253)11 (50) 118 (265)54 (83) 36 (146)232 (347)38 (23) Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 11 (42) 408 (332)35 (86) 54 (50)34 (38) 16 (16)58 (112) 118 (176)123 (174) 23 (26)16 (54) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 8 (9)66 (14)21 (18) 173 (223)99 (186) 33 (40)20 (80)26 (39) 100027545 | 346 (228) 1,100 (563) 43 (35) 576 (78) 186 (93) Produce Ave. 101 NB Off-Ramp Airport Blvd. Poletti Wy. 147 (182) 680 (1,200) 52 (91) 12 (26) 209 (80) 179 (278)261 (435) 382 (459) 99 (240)164 (282) 35 (54) Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. Airport Blvd. 12 (36) 382 (103) 22 (2) 549 (865)339 (595) 414 (397) 76 (130) 196 (275) 115 (117) 28 (33) 297 (276)344 (73) 52 (141) 125 (184)330 (148) 15 (35) 4 (20)438 (590) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave. Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 61 (66) 28 (44)6 (8) 164 (183) 209 (210)134 (239) 38 (85) 25 (76)139 (424) 100027545 | Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic The existing intersection LOS results generally match observed c are generally consistent with previous studies performed in the The detailed LOS calculations for the vehicle movements at all s Appendix E (Traffic Data, LOS Worksheets). Existing Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections th The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Calt percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off intersections adjacent to or nearby off-ramp intersections that ramp traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to bac entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. Ninety-fifth percentile vehic study intersections that were in the vicinity of freeway interch #2: Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard #11: East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way/US-101 Northbound off-ramp #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard #16: US-101 Northbound Ramps/Wonder Color Lane/South Airport Bou The results of the existing intersection queuing analysis are pr4.10-6 (Existing Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections). Th th movements that have 95 percentile queues that exceed their storage capacity during the peak hours in bold. Currently the only intersection that has queues exceed storage Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard. Table 4.10-6 Existing Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) th Storage IntersectionMovement Distance (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Right Turn 680 124 68 Westbound Left Turn 465 213 153 Westbound Through 465 217 254 Northbound Through 220 77 82 Southbound Through 360 200 77 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-27 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-6 Existing Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Storage th IntersectionMovement Distance (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 10. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Through 665 392 222 Eastbound Right Turn 665 38 39 Westbound Left Turn 670 49 425 Westbound Through 670 56 269 Westbound Right Turn 240 7 52 Northbound Left Turn 150 41 49 Northbound Through 410 188 261 Northbound Right Turn 410 119 15 Southbound Left Turn 390 334 118 Southbound Through 390 229 228 Southbound Right Turn 180 45 43 11. E. Grand Avenue/US-101 NB off-ramp/Poletti Way Side-Street Stop Intersection, no queues reported 14. San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 150 69 121 Eastbound Through 370 97 102 Eastbound Right Turn 150 49 104 Westbound Left Turn 225 196 528 Westbound Through 810 164 339 Westbound Right Turn 85 100 250 Northbound Left Turn 130 177 109 Northbound Through 300 56 40 Southbound Left Turn 150 119 178 Southbound Through 1550 359 546 Southbound Right Turn 1550 22 30 15. So. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 140 88 56 Eastbound Through 730 294 248 Eastbound Right Turn 730 147 91 Northbound Left Turn 300 98 183 Northbound Through 930 72 42 Northbound Right Turn 930 0 0 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-28 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-6 Existing Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Storage th IntersectionMovement Distance (feet) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 16. US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off-Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 800 358 272 Eastbound Through 800 349 273 Eastbound Right Turn 150 84 43 Westbound Through 200 43 46 Westbound Right Turn 200 20 18 Northbound Left Turn 295 70 156 Northbound Through 635 130 190 Southbound Left Turn 100 18 42 Southbound Through 1080 221 431 Southbound Right Turn 125 44 84 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = 95 percentile queue exceeds storage length th Freeway Volumes and Operations Freeway mainline volumes were collected from the PeMS (Performan 2013). Ramp volumes were collected from the East of US-101 Study, recent intersection counts, and the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) travel Caltrans database for traffic counts that includes traffic volum freeway at certain points. Volume data was collected from the de Francisco just north of the Oyster Point Boulevard off-ramp. The (7:009:00 ) and PM (4:006:00 ) peak period counts for all midweek days (Tuesday through AMPM Thursday) in October 2013. After discarding days where less than (potentially due to faults in the detector readings), the average of the to determine the overall average mainline peak hour volume. The resulting freeway analysis results are presented in Table 4.10-7 (Existing Freeway Segment LOS Results). The freeway operations vary depending on the peak hour, dire LOS A to LOS E. Several segments on US-101 currently exceed their Congestion Management Program (CMP) LOS standard (LOS E), as outlined in the Regulatory Contex Northbound US-101 North of Oyster Point BoulevardLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 between Oyster On and Miller OffLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 between Produce on and I-380 westLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-29 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-7 Existing Freeway Segment LOS Results Freeway Segment Type Peak Hour Volume V/C Density LOS CMP Standard ab Northbound US-101 AM 9,480 0.73 26.93 D E I-380 to South Airport Blvd Off Basic PM 7,281 0.56 20.24 C E AM 8,264 0.76 28.53 D E Between S Airport Blvd Ramps Basic PM 6,518 0.60 21.75 C E AM 8,264 0.92 46.36 E E South Airport Blvd On Ramp to E Grand Weave Ave/Poletti Way PM 6,518 0.73 30.65 D E AM 6,892 0.79 30.18 D E Between Grand ramps Basic PM 6,387 0.74 27.29 D E AM 6,892 0.99 45.60 E E Grand/Airport On to Oyster Off Weave PM 6,387 0.95 43.10 E E AM 6,826 0.79 29.78 D E Between Oyster Point ramps Basic PM 6,735 0.78 29.24 D E AM 6,826 >1.00 F E North of Oyster Point Weave PM 6,735 >1.00 F E Southbound US-101 AM 8,605 0.99 44.28 E E Oyster Point Blvd Off Ramp Basic PM 6,494 0.75 27.87 D E AM 7,340 0.85 33.12 D E Between Oyster Off and Airport On Basic PM 6,340 0.73 27.04 D E AM 7,340 0.85 33.12 D E Airport Blvd On Ramp Basic PM 6,340 0.73 27.04 D E AM 8,040 >1.00 F E Between Oyster On and Miller Off Weave PM 6,960 >1.00 F E AM 8,004 0.92 38.33 E E Produce/Airport Off Basic PM 7,692 0.89 35.73 E E AM 7,796 0.90 36.57 E E Between Produce Ramps Basic PM 7,273 0.84 32.65 D E AM 7,796 >1.00 F E Between Produce on and I-380 west Weave PM 7,273 >1.00 F E SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = unacceptable LOS a.Freeway segment level of service based on volume to capacity ratio according to the Highway Capacity Manual. Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. b.Density for each segment is shown in passenger car equivalents p of roadway per lane (pcpmpl). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-30 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Poor freeway operations along US-101 are due primarily to very high mainline volumes traveling throu South San Francisco, which is located in the center of a major e traveling between San Francisco, the Peninsula and the South Bay Freeway ramp volume-to-capacity results are shown in Table 4.10-8 (Existing Freeway Ramp Volume-to- Capacity Results). The northbound US-101 off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Boulevard is currently serving volumes over the theoretical capacity. Table 4.10-8 Existing Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results Freeway Ramp Peak Hour Capacity (veh/hr) Volume (veh/hr) Northbound US-101 AM 650 On-ramp from Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard 2,000 PM 842 AM 246 On-ramp from South Airport Boulevard 2,000 PM 405 AM 1,618 Off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way 1,500 PM 536 AM 1,216 Off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard 1,500 PM 763 Southbound US-101 AM 934 On-ramp from Produce Avenue 3,300 PM 1,733 AM 531 Off-ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue 1,500 PM 531 AM 208 Off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue 1,500 PM 419 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = volume exceeds capacity 4.10.3Regulatory Framework Applicable state and local laws, regulations, and orders that pe issues are presented below. The City of South San Francisco has City-operated traffic signals. State Routes, including US-101, are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Public transit agencies with operations in the study area are SamTrans, are several regional and local agencies with jurisdiction relate Federal There are no federal regulations applicable to transportation/tr City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-31 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic State California Department of Transportation Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance and operation of Sta Franciscos facilities include US-101. Caltrans maintains a volume monitoring program and reviews local agency planning documents (such as EIRs) to assist congestion points. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impa by Caltrans is intended to provide a consistent basis for evalua between LOS C and LOS D and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to det addition, Caltrans states that for existing State highway facili existing LOS should be maintained. Local Metropolitan Transportation Commission The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transpor financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (Bay the regional transportation plan and prioritizing regional trans funding. In July 2013, MTC approved Plan Bay Area, a long-range use/housing strategy, which identified priority development area project study area is located in a PDA, where development is enc regional sustainability and transportation plans. City/County Association of Governments The C/CAG is the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo Coun a Congestion Management Plan (CMP). The CMP monitors levels of s and works to improve all methods of transportation locally and r South San Francisco General Plan The City General Plan currently in place was adopted in October of 1999, applicable. The applicable circulation and bicycle/pedestrian go transportation impacts in the project study area are included be Guiding Policies Street System Policy 2-G-1 Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especiall emerging employment areas such as in the East of US-101 area. Policy 2-G-2 Improve connections between different parts of the city. These integrate different parts of the city. Connections between areas US-101 (currently limited to streets that provide freeway access) woul South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-32 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic up capacity along streets such as Grand Avenue and Oyster Point provide access to US-101. Connections are also critical across El Camino Real and Junipero Serra Boulevard and from Westborough to Downtown. Policy 2-G-3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights-of-way and the BAR way to establish new streets. Policy 2-G-5 Use South San Francisco Street Classifications, to identify, sc implement roadway improvements. Policy 2-G-6 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, t arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, stri total vehicle-miles traveled. Policy 2-G-7 Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake undertake transportation improvements. Policy 2-G-8 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street i including mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by C Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) Traffic Operations and Service Standards Policy 2-G-9 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets, intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. Policy 2-G-10 Accept LOS E or F after finding that: There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower leve and The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, o benefit. Policy 2-G-11 Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. Implementing Policies Street System and Improvements Policy 2-I-1 Continue using the Capital Improvement Program to program and i needed improvements to the street system. Policy 2-I-2 Undertake street improvements identified in General Plan Figure2. (Amended by City Council Resolution 31-2002, Adopted April 24, 2002) Improvements identified include: Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general alignment of an abandoned railroad way. This would be the first non-freeway related connection betw areas east and west of US-101. The street will go under US-101. Either a depressed intersection at Railroad Avenue or an elevated section above the Caltrain tracks would be needed. This will probably be improvement ($15-20 million), requiring detailed studies. Howeve City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-33 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic expected to accommodate more than 20,000 trips per day and exist structures will not need to be removed. Consideration should be providing a bikeway in conjunction with the street design. Victory Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to South Airpo Boulevard. This will need to be undertaken in conjunction with d of the regional commercial facilities designated on the General New interchange at Victory Avenue and US-101. This will provide direct connection between Lindenville and US-101, and be the primary truck ingress/egress point in South San Francisco, obviating the need negotiate Downtown streets. As with Victory Avenue extension, de will need to occur in conjunction with development of regional c facilities. Policy 2-I-3 Undertake studies to establish precise alignments for streets i future right-of-way needs. Locate future arterials and collector general alignments shown outlined in the General Plan. (Minor va depicted alignments will not require a General Plan amendment.) Policy 2-I-4 Establish priorities for transportation improvements, and prepa program to implement identified street improvements. This would working with other agencies, including BART for the Mission Road the BART right-of-way, Caltrans on the new US-101 interchange, and with C/CAG on several other projects. Policy 2-I-5 Establish accessibility requirements for all streets designated collector in the General Plan. As part of development review of these streets, ensure that access to individual sites does not i flow. The General Plan anticipates development along several art collector streets, including in much of Downtown, and along El C Gellert Boulevard, Arroyo Drive, Victory Avenue extension, Hills Mission Road extension, and East Grand Avenue. Accessibility req should ensure that ingress/egress from sites along arterial and limited to a few locations, and residential developments do not lined up along the streets, which would represent a safety hazar traffic flow. Policy 2-I-6 intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the US-101 area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted Sept 26, 2001.) The East of US-101 traffic study, prepared by the City in April 2001, identifies improvements that would result in better traffic flow congestion during peak hours. The following improvements have be and evaluated: Bayshore Boulevard and US-101 South Hook Ramp(s); Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities/Oyster Point Boulevard; Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard; Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard; Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard; South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-34 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US-101 Southbound off-ramp; Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue; Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue; Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue; Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way and East Grand Avenue; East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive; Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue; South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard; South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue; Harbor Way; Mitchell Avenue. Policy 2-I-7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of t and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traff impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishi especially for improvements required in the Lindenville area. (A Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) Policy 2-I-7a Establish a traffic improvement fee to fund transportation impro East of US-101 area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-2001, Adopted September 26, 2001) Policy 2-I-8 Develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the traffic individual developments. Currently, the City does not have an adopted calculation method or a traffic analysis procedure. Therefore, i ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are iden developers pay their fair-share of the transportation system imp Policy 2-I-9 Where appropriate, consider upfronting portions of improvement y be appropriate for improvements such as the Victory Avenue extensio extension and US-101 interchange to facilitate development of a regional commercial center, sales tax revenues from which (potentially in million per year) could help retire the improvement debt. Level of Service Policy 2-I-10 Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based o LOS standards. Policy 2-I-11 Implement, to the extent feasible, circulation system improvemen the General Plan prior to deterioration in levels of service bel standard. South San Francisco General Plan The General Plan lays out the general principles for transportat including improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, impro City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-35 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic US-101 and Downtown, and establishing key corridors between residentia centers. To achieve this, the following policies are included in Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from Level of Service (LOS) standards. Accept LOS E or F if the uses resulting in the lower level of se benefit The General Plan recommends locations for traffic calming as par or East of US-101: require project proponents to provide sidewalks and street tre frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment proj The General Plan recommends improvements to pedestrian connectio and the surroundings: install handicapped ramps at all intersect being installed; construct wide sidewalks where feasible to acco continue intersections; and provide landscaping that encourages pedestria The General Plan also includes a new pedestrian and bicycle conn Caltrain Station). The crossing would begin on the southeast cor and Grand and connect to the east side of the Caltrain right of Grand Avenue. East of US-101 Area Plan and Traffic Study The East of US-101 Area Plan focuses on the unique character and economic resource US-101. The plan outlines circulation goals for future development in US-101 area, which include mitigating vehicular impacts, encouraging transportation vehicles, and promoting use of public transit to and within the element and policies that identify the need for a streetscape pl campus planning (e.g. Genentech Master Plan). Within the Downtow of US-101 Traffic Study identifies a number of intersection capacity modi level of service impacts associated with future development in tUS-101 area. These capacity increases would affect intersections along Airport Boulevard, Ea Boulevard. Due to their focus on maintaining traffic operations, modifications are incongruent with circulation goals associated modes. South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan A detailed Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City Council i improvements and was adopted as an amendment to the City of Sout Transportation and Circulation Element. Specific routes proposed existing conditions section. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-36 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic South San Francisco/San Bruno Community-Based Transportation Pla The South San Francisco San Bruno Community Based Transportation transportation needs and strategies and action items to address resulted in the identification of twenty-five overarching unmet area residents and stakeholders. These needs were split into two were brought up. Nine transportation strategies were identified, input, to address Chapter 4 includes a description and preliminary evaluation of each of the nine strategies. The nine transportation Improve Transit Stop Amenities and Security Improve the Affordability of Public Transit for Low-income Users Improve Bicycle Amenities Provide Free or Low-cost Bicycles Improve Pedestrian Amenities, particularly along Grand, Cypress, Increase Public Access to Information about Transportation Optio Increase SamTrans Bus Service Improve Connectivity of Existing Transit Service Improve access to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, incl access tunnel to a relocated/elongated train platform Downtown Strategy The Downtown Design Strategies dev released in March of 1998. The Strategies were the result of a o community leaders, and planners gathered to discuss ways in whic its Downtown. Many of the strategies in the Transportation and C Community-Based Transportation Plan, and are listed below: Install parallel parking on the south side of Grand Avenue Eliminate cut-in parking spaces in favor of sidewalk amenities a lots on Miller and Baden Avenues Develop a streetcar or shuttle along Grand Avenue Slow cars with cobbled paving Prohibit driveways or parking entrances from Grand Avenue Concentrate truck and through-traffic on Miller and Baden Avenue destination point for shoppers Caltrain Electrification The Caltrain Modernization Program will electrify and upgrade the pe capacity, safety and reliability of Caltrains commuter rail service. The Caltrain Modernization Program is City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-37 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic scheduled to be complete by 2019. -term vision for strategic plans. The program includes: Service Enhancements: Modernization will allow Caltrain to operate quieter, cleaner, frequent and/or faster train service to more riders. Increased c help Caltrain meet increasing ridership demand and alleviate loc Financial Sustainability: Modernization will also help support the financial sustainability system by increasing ridership and fare revenue, and reducing op replacing diesel fuel with electricity. Economic Benefits: Modernization also creates regional job opportunities and other economic benefits that are critical to the economic welfare of o California High-Speed Rail The Caltrain Modernization Program will help prepare the corrido -speed rail service, which is planned for 2029. Caltrain and hig blended system. Caltrain, along with local stakeholders and the California High Speed Rail Authority, is cu system upgrades will be required to support blended Caltrain and Within the study area, the Caltrain right-of-way is nine tracks two tracks north and south of the Station. Most of these existin freight rail tracks. These uses will need to be relocated under not known at this time. It is unlikely that additional right-of- because of the existing width of the right-of-way. US-101/Miller Avenue Interchange Alternative Analysis The South San Francisco Engineering Division developed conceptua Avenue into a one-way couplet to address traffic congestion in t Grand, and Baden intersections on Airport Boulevard. Miller Aven westbound corridor and Grand Avenue would become the primary eas Downtown. Airport Boulevard would also be reconfigured to accomm turns onto Miller Avenue. Conversion of Baden Avenue to one-way was also reviewed; however, it was not ultimately included in the alternatives analysis. Southbound well. No operational analysis was conducted for the plan; howeveof-way and design requirements would be challenging and public outreach wou also considered the operational benefits of restricting large tr Avenue off-ramp. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-38 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic 4.10.4Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method This section evaluates the transportation-related impacts relate and identifies appropriate mitigation measures where feasible. T existing and cumulative conditions. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2013 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have recreation if it would do any of the following: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing the performance of the circulation system, taking into account a including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant comp system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, h bicycle paths, and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, inclu of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standa congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sh intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding pub facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of s The significance criteria below are used to determine whether im in significant environmental impacts that require mitigation. Intersection Impact Criteria A project will result in a significant traffic impact at interse If a signalized intersection with baseline traffic volumes is op (LOS D or better) deteriorates to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or project traffic and the total traffic volume through the intersect percent; or If an unsignalized intersection with baseline traffic volumes is (LOS E or better) deteriorates to LOS F with the addition of project volume through the intersection increases by at least two percent; or City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-39 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic If the addition of project traffic at an unsignalized intersecti meet the Caltrans peak hour or pedestrian/school crossing signal If a signalized or unsignalized intersection is already operatin proposed project increases the total traffic volume at the inter If the addition of project traffic at intersections in the vicin th increase acceptable baseline 95 percentile vehicle queues to unacceptable levels (as determined th by the Synchro software program and the storage length of each m percentile vehicle queues are already at unacceptable levels, th volume on the queuing volume by at least 1 percent. The South San Francisco General Plan outlines two relevant exceptio which they may deem applicable to the project: Accept LOS E or F after finding that there is no feasible and pr level of service, and the uses resulting in the lower level of ser benefit; and Exempt development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain of BART station or a ferry terminal from LOS standards. Freeway Segment Impact Criteria A project will result in a significant traffic impact on freeway If operations on US-101 mainline segments or ramps deteriorate from LOS E or better baseline conditions to LOS F during the AM or PM peak hour with an 1 percent in total traffic volume due to the project; or If operations on US-101 mainline segments or ramps are already a increase traffic volumes by more than 1 percent Design Review Considerations A roadway design impact is considered significant when the proje presents safety concerns. Emergency Access Impact Criteria An emergency vehicle access impact is considered to be significa inadequate design features to accommodate emergency vehicle acce Pedestrian and Bicycle Impact Criteria When jurisdictions do not have specific adopted significance cri the overall impact on pedestrian and bicycle facilities should b measures for other significant impacts would potentially negativ considered significant and unavoidable. Pedestrian and bicycle i the proposed project results in any of the following: Project alters existing facilities with a negative impact on ped South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-40 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Project extends pedestrian walking distance at signalized inters Project creates greater pedestrian exposure at signalized inters Project significantly increases delay to pedestrians at signaliz Is inconsistent with adopted plans and programs Transit Impact Criteria Public transit impacts would be significant if the demand for pu which local transit operators or agencies could accommodate. In if the project conflicts with adopted policies, plans or program impact is also significant if the project disrupts existing tran necessary to accommodate transit demand. Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project result in a change in air traffic pa increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results Threshold Would the project substantially increase hazards due t curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., f Threshold Would the project result in inadequate emergency acces The study area is located approximately 2.5 miles north of the S. The proposed project would represent infill development that results however, building heights are still within the FAA limits and wo patterns. Further, the proposed roadway improvements would not i curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses that woul Emergency vehicles would be able to use the roadways surrounding project site, maintaining existing emergency access. Therefore, related to air traffic, design hazards, or emergency vehicle acc Project Impacts and Mitigation The following section summarizes the analysis of various study aea transportation circulation factors. This section includes and analyzes existing plus project and cum and compares them to the appropriate without project conditions. Existing Plus Project Conditions This section presents the methodologies used to estimate project intersection and freeway level of service analysis for existing form the baseline against which project-related impacts are eval The Specific Plan includes several physical changes to the road geometry at the intersection of Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard: City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-41 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Convert northbound curbside lane into a through-right -turn shar movements onto US-101 on-ramp are permitted Modify southbound approach lanes to include two southbound throu lane Removal of the northbound left-turn lane and redirect vehicles t Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates Fehr & Peers estimated trip generation based on the proposed pro generation methodology known as Plan+. The Plan+ method accounts such as the density and diversity of land uses, design of the pe demographics of the site, and distance to transit to develop mor mixed-use and transit oriented developments than traditional traE (Traffic Data, Plan+ Application for Study Area and Methodology Valida Analysis Assumptions) contains detailed documentation of the Pla project and validation of the methodology. Table 4.10-9 (Specific Plan Trip Generation) summarizes the estimated trip and existing plus project, based on the land use summary present Application for Study Area and Methodology Validation: EIR Transportat shown in Table 4.10-9, the proposed project is estimated to generate about 2,100 AM trips and about 2,500 PM peak hour vehicle trips. The proposed projec 58 percent more daily trips than the existing land uses. Plan+ does not calcu separate land use and mode, so the tool output was proportionall for each land use. The external vehicle trips for the West and E as inputs for the traffic impact analysis, and the transit, bicy estimates of non-vehicle trips in the study area. Transit, bicyc remain aggregated for all land uses because disaggregating the s and not accurate. Table 4.10-10 (Project Trips) summarizes new vehicle, transit, and walk/bi proposed project land uses, based on the above trip generation s differences between existing and existing plus project, from the and level of detail. Transit, bicycle and pedestrian trips remai In/Out Split of Generated Trips The in/out split of land uses was determined by applying the mos Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2012). applied to the number of external vehicle trips calculated using and out, as shown in Table 4.10-11 (Trip Generation In/Out Splits External Vehicle Trips). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-42 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-9 Specific Plan Trip Generation Existing Existing Plus Project Intersection Daily AM PM Daily AM PM External Vehicle Trips a West 28,200 1,330 2,310 38,420 1,930 3,160 Residential 7,335 542 580 13,358 987 1,050 Office/R&D 1,803 254 208 2,510 356 297 Commercial/Other 19,062 534 1,522 22,552 587 1,813 East 12,920 880 1,330 26,770 2,380 2,990 Residential 0 0 0 272 17 28 Office/R&D 1,467 219 193 9,976 1,591 1,383 Other 11,453 661 1,137 16,523 771 1,579 Total 41,120 2,210 3,640 65,190 4,310 6,150 Net New Vehicle Trips 24,070 2,100 2,510 External Transit Trips West 1,187 93 179 1,799 153 271 East 436 45 83 1,062 145 217 Total 1,620 140 260 2,860 300 490 Net New Transit Trips 1240 160 230 External Walk/Bike Trips West 2,390 192 218 3,891 316 346 East 400 49 47 1,061 141 127 Total 2,790 240 270 4,950 460 470 Net New Walk/Bike Trips 2,160 220 200 Internal Trips (Walk/Bike) West 5,458 264 884 8,186 442 1,262 East 874 14 128 3,005 98 430 Total 6,330 280 1,010 11,190 540 1,690 Net New Internal Trips 4,860 260 680 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). a. Trip generation forecasts account for the diversity of land usesthe study area. These factors contribute to an approximately 20% reduction in vehicle trips being generated compared to typical I generation rates. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-43 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-10 Project Trips Period Daily AM PM External Vehicle Trips West 10,220 600 850 Residential 6,023 445 470 Office/R&D 707 102 89 Commercial/Other 3,490 53 291 East 13,850 1,500 1,660 Residential 272 17 28 Office/R&D 8,509 1,372 1,190 Commercial/Other 5,070 110 442 Total 24,070 2,100 2,510 External Transit Trips West 612 60 92 East 626 100 134 Total 1,240 160 230 External Walk/Bike Trips West 1,501 124 128 East 661 92 80 Total 2,160 220 200 Internal Trips (Walk/Bike) West 2,728 178 378 East 2,131 84 302 Total 4,860 260 680 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Vehicle Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution refers to the directions from which the trips approach and depart, using the in/out movement summarized in Tab distribution estimates were developed based on the locations of compl patterns in the area, the MTC regional travel demand model, cens assumptions including the East of US-101 Traffic Study. These sources were used to inform two separate composite trip distribution profiles: one each for the West and estimate the trips that are identified as traveling in between t complementary land uses between the two sites. Origins and desti trips connected to the study area. Some residential trips origin area, and connect to the north, south, west and east area. Howev originate in the East area and connect to east of the study area South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-44 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-11 Trip Generation In/Out Splits External Vehicle Trips AM PM Land Use In Out Total In Out Total West Residential 85 360 445 300 170 470 Commercial/Other 33 20 53 140 152 292 Office/R&D 90 14 104 14 75 88 Total 208 394 600 454 397 850 East Residential 3 14 17 18 10 28 Commercial/Other 68 42 110 212 230 442 Office/R&D 1,195 178 1,373 222 967 1,189 Total 1,266 234 1,500 452 1,207 1,659 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). The proposed project trip distribution for each of the areas is 4.10-5A (External Trip Distribution [West]) and Figure 4.10-5B (External Trip Distribution [East]). Study intersections are shown on Figure 4.10-1 (Study Intersections and Freeway Segments). Project trips are then assigned to the roadway network and study intersections, as shown in Figure 4.10-6A and Figure 4.10-6B (Project Trip Assignment). Intersection Operations Intersection volumes for existing plus project vehicle are shown4.10-7A and Figure 4.10-7B (Existing Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Volumes). Existing shown in Table 4.10-12 (Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results). New vehicl the proposed project would add traffic to all study intersections, inc currently operate at LOS E or F. These added project trips would intersection LOS at several intersections along Grand Avenue and Airport Downtown compared to existing conditions. These are considered s below. Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections Existing Plus Project vehicle queues at freeway interchange inte4.10-13 (Existing Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interc th Project conditions, the following intersections have movements w95 percentile queues that exceed their storage capacity during the AM and/or PM peak hours: #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard #16: US-101 Northbound/South Airport Blvd Off Ramp/South Airport City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-45 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-12 Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results Existing Existing Plus Project Intersection Control AM PM AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS aaaa 1.Miller Ave/Linden Ave Signal 21.2 C 34.9 C 23.2 C 55.6 E 2.Miller Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 28.2 C 19.3 B 29.1 C 26.7 C 3.Miller Ave/Spruce Ave Signal 18.3 B 20.0 B 25.1 C 21.4 C 4.Grand Ave/Dubuque Ave Signal 5.9 A 4.2 A 6.1 A 6.4 A 5.Grand Ave/E. Grand Ave Signal 19.5 B 16.8 B 23.2 C 42.0 D 6.E. Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd Signal 33.5 C 36.0 D 35.7 D 61.7 E 7.Grand Ave/Spruce Ave Signal 16.5 B 19.2 B 18.5 B 21.9 C 8.Grand Ave/Maple Ave Signal 9.3 A 9.7 A 11.1 B 10.6 B 9.Grand Ave/Linden Ave Signal 11.5 B 12.7 B 19.4 B 44.5 D 10. Grand Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 40.7 D 44.6 D >80 (1.12) F >80 (1.13) F 11. E. Grand Ave/US-101 NB off- SSS 18.3 C 10.7 B 23.8 C 11.6 B ramp/Poletti Way 12. Baden Ave/Linden Ave Signal 39.2 D >80 (0.92) F 43.2 D >80 (1.03) F 13. Baden Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 26.7 C 29.6 C 24.3 C 31.1 C 14. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 37.1 D 51.2 D 37.1 D >80 (1.20) F 15. South Airport Blvd/ Gateway Blvd Signal 38.4 D 42.5 D 67.7 E >80 (1.32) F 16. US-101 NB/South Airport Blvd Signal 29.4 C 34.8 C 28.2 C 48.5 D Off Ramp/ South Airport Blvd SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = unacceptable LOS; shaded = potentially significant impact; SSS = side-street stop a.For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weight per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled intersection, the delay shown is the wors-operating approach delay. For intersections performing at LOS F, Volume/Capacity ratio for the overall intersection is shown in parentheses. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-46 100027545 | 100027545 | 4 (7) 25 (119) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 10 (18) 2 (2) 22 (37)114 (519)7 (11) E. Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 11 (13) 1 (2)4 (5) 5 (8)5 (7) 14 (23)3 (6) 0 (1) 5 (7)4 (4) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 2 (2) 9 (11) 6 (8) 100027545 | 396 (186)288 (111) Produce Ave. Poletti Wy.Airport Blvd. 81 (17) 115 (223) 3 (4) 5 (7) 23 (33)35 (125) 28 (114)18 (31) Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. 16 (77) 131 (57) 30 (43)157 (191) 26 (45)11 (20) 4 (6)1 (2) 7 (13)4 (7)159 (61) 1 (2)47 (80) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave.Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 8 (11)13 (16) 9 (12)6 (8)16 (77) 10 (13)2 (4)105 (535) 100027545 | 63 (64)347 (63) 66 (164)294 (108) 25 (16)81 (214) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 9 (5)272 (73) 73 (85)110 (344) 19 (24)55 (230) 791 (253)13 (52) 118 (265)54 (83) 121 (351)346 (866)45 (34) Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 22 (55) 409 (334)39 (91) 59 (58)39 (45) 30 (39)61 (118) 118 (176)123 (175) 28 (33)20 (58) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 8 (9)66 (14)23 (20) 173 (223)108 (197) 33 (40)20 (80)32 (47) 100027545 | 1,496 (749)634 (339) 576 (78)43 (35) 186 (93) Produce Ave. 101 NB Off-Ramp Poletti Wy.Airport Blvd. 228 (199) 795 (1,423) 55 (95) 12 (26) 214 (87) 214 (403)261 (435) 468 (660) 117 (271)164 (282) Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. Airport Blvd. 12 (36) 513 (160) 22 (2) 706 (1,056)339 (595) 444 (440) 92 (207) 207 (295) 141 (162) 32 (39) 344 (73) 298 (278) 59 (154) 129 (191)489 (209) 15 (35) 5 (22)485 (670) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave. Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 69 (77) 41 (60)6 (8) 173 (195) 215 (218)150 (316) 48 (98) 27 (80)244 (959) 100027545 | Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-13 Existing Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Volume Increase tha Storage Existing Existing Plus Project IntersectionMovement Distance AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak (feet) Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour 2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Right Turn 680 124 68 162 107 Westbound Left Turn 465 213 153 281 248 Westbound Through 465 217 254 287 302 Northbound Through 220 77 82 95 151 Southbound Through 360 200 77 202 78 10. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Through 665 392 222 813 493 Eastbound Right Turn 665 38 39 81 122 Westbound Left Turn 670 49 425 62 515 Westbound Through 670 56 269 187 663 Westbound Right Turn 240 7 52 46 68 Northbound Left Turn 150 41 49 Northbound Through 410 188 261 228 284 Northbound Right Turn 410 119 15 Southbound Left Turn 390 334 118 449 143 Southbound Through 390 229 228 361 246 Southbound Right Turn 180 45 43 64 26 11. E. Grand Avenue/US-101 NB off-ramp/Poletti Way. Side-Street Stop Intersection, so no queues reported 14. San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 150 69 121 68 129 Eastbound Through 370 97 102 119 111 Eastbound Right Turn 150 49 104 50 124 Westbound Left Turn 225 196 528 219 552 53% Westbound Through 810 164 339 194 332 Westbound Right Turn 85 100 250 111 208 27% 33% Northbound Left Turn 130 177 109 186 110 0% Northbound Through 300 56 40 92 46 Southbound Left Turn 150 119 178 244 175 9% Southbound Through 1550 359 546 445 729 Southbound Right Turn 1550 22 30 15 36 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-59 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-13 Existing Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Volume Increase tha Storage Existing Existing Plus Project IntersectionMovement Distance AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak (feet) Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour 15. So. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 140 88 56 790 279 Eastbound Through 730 294 248 311 247 Eastbound Right Turn 730 147 91 81 82 Northbound Left Turn 300 98 183 129 190 Northbound Through 930 72 42 208 48 Northbound Right Turn 930 0 0 0 0 16. US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Blvd Eastbound Left Turn 800 358 272 418 329 Eastbound Through 800 349 273 433 326 Eastbound Right Turn 150 84 43 107 42 Westbound Through 200 43 46 43 46 Westbound Right Turn 200 20 18 20 18 Northbound Left Turn 295 70 156 216 276 Northbound Through 635 130 190 139 201 Southbound Left Turn 100 18 42 20 44 Southbound Through 1080 221 431 221 428 Southbound Right Turn 125 44 84 60 133 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = 95 percentile queue exceeds storage length; shaded = potentially significant impact th a.Volume Increased is calculated as the increase in volume for thaand is only shown for movements that are already exceeding storage under baseline conditions. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-60 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, or measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation account all modes of transportation including mass transit and n and relevant components of the circulation system, including, bu intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bi mass transit? Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the Specific Plan could conflict ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. This is considered a pote significant impact. Implementation of mitigation would reduce im most intersections to , but impacts would remain for five intersections. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the addition Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue and cause it to degrade from LOS C t under existing plus project conditions. Implementation of mitigation m this impact to a level. A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at #1 M would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D i Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the addition Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard and cause it to degrade from LOS E in the PM peak hour under existing plus project conditions. Implementation of mitiga2 would reduce this impact to a level. This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way. This lane modification and signal timing adjustmen intersection, and improve operations at #6 E. Grand Avenue/Gatew intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak ho Convert one westbound through lane to a second westbound left-t the traffic signal at E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addit #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard and cause it to degrade from PM peak hours under existing plus project conditions. In addition, th eastbound through and southbound left turn 95 percentile queues would exceed the respective storage capacity for the movements. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-3 would reduce this impact to a level during the AM peak hour, but would be considered during the PM peak hour. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment w and improve operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Th require any additional right-of-way. This would cause the inters unacceptable LOS E in the AM peak hour. This mitigation measure would improve opera the AM and PM peak hours; however, the intersection would still operE. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-61 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Additionally, implementation of the identified mitigation measur turn queuing impact. Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket a retime and optimize the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulev Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of #12 Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue and would exacerbate unacceptable under existing plus project conditions. Implementation of MM4.10-4 would reduce this impact to a level. This modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle d operations at #12 Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause t acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. Add a southbound left-turn pocket by removing existing parking signal at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue to reallocate green time to bett Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of #14 San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard and cause it to degrade fPM th peak hour under existing plus project conditions. Furthermore, the percentile queues for several movements during the AM and PM pea mitigation measure MM4.10-5 would reduce this impact on motor ve level. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would r improve operations at #14 San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Th operate at an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. The inclusion of three left-turn lanes is not typically recommended therefore, alternative mitigation measures may need to be explor accepted. Modify the westbound approach to add a left-turn pocket, modify left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane, and optim Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to better Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addit #15 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and cause it to de AM peak hour and LOS D to F in the PM peak hour under existing pl th Furthermore, the project would result in the eastbound left turn 95 percentile queue exceeding storage capacity for the movement during the AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of MM4.10-6 would reduce this intersection LOS impact to a level, but would be considered as it relates to queuing. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce delay at operations at #15 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. Thi operate at an acceptable LOS D in the AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-6 would improve queuing at the eastbound left turn movement; howev South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-62 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic continue to exceed available storage capacity, resulting in a si at this intersection. Include an additional westbound through lane, add a second sout retime and optimize the traffic signal at South Airport Boulevard/ green time to better serve future traffic volumes. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addit #16 US-101 Northbound/South Airport Blvd Off Ramp/South Airport Blvd that th southbound right turn 95 percentile queue exceeding the storage capacity for the movemen PM peak hour under existing plus project conditions. Implementat7 would reduce this impact to a level. A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better reduce queuing at the southbound right-turn movement. This would at an acceptable LOS D and with acceptable queue lengths during the Other Transportation Impacts and Mitigations This section includes a discussion of the potential impacts of t transit facilities; emergency access; construction; transportati Public Transit Facilities As discussed previously, public transit service in the area is p employer shuttles. Caltrain, SamTrans, and employer shuttles pro area and bus connections to BART serve the study area. Public tr project were determined based on existing regional transit mode forecasts. The Plan+ forecasts include transit ridership forecasts based on accessibility of transit services at the site to employment. Bas in approximately 1,240 new daily transit trips. Implementation o transit access and transit use, and will be accompanied by futur expanded services in the study area. Therefore, impacts to publi . Pedestrian Facilities Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased pe area. In general, the Specific Plan would enhance pedestrian ope pedestrian access at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersec area roads, and a network of pedestrian-oriented streets throughe project study area. Proposed on- site pedestrian improvements are shown in Figure 4.10-3. Future project designs will be reviewed to ensure consistency with de improvements shown in Figure 4.10-3 and proposed as part of the Specific Plan and citywide Pedestria Master Plan, implementation of the project would improve existing City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-63 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic minimize on-site potential conflicts between various modes, and connections between the Caltrain station, Downtown and the East US-101 area. Implementation of mitigation at identified intersections (#6, #9 increase crossing distance for pedestrians, create greater pedes pedestrians. Pedestrian and bicycle impacts would be considered would alter existing facilities with a negative impact on pedest and programs. Since implementation of this mitigation would like for pedestrians, the impact would be at these five intersections. Bicycle Facilities Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in increased bi area. In general, the Specific Plan would enhance bicycle operat access at the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection, addit and a network of bicycle-oriented streets throughout the project improvements are shown in Figure 4.10-3. Future project designs will be reviewed to ensure consistency with de improvements shown in Figure 4.10-3 and proposed as part of the Specific Plan and citywide Pedestria Master Plan, implementation of the project would improve existin potential conflicts between various modes, and provide safe and connections between the Caltrain station, Downtown and the East US-101 area. A summary of applicable policies and plans was provided previous consistent with these policies, plans, and programs and would no facilities described in these plans. In addition, the proposed p to existing bicycle facilities. Therefore, impacts to bicycle co. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-64 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable congesti including, but not limited to, level of service standards and tr or other standards established by the county congestion manageme designated roads or highways? Impact 4.10-2 Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add 1 percent to the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on two northbound segments and one southbound segment of US-101 would add traffic greater than 1 percent to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions for one northbound segment and two southbound segments, resulting in a significant proj contribution under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing freeway volumes plus new vehicle trips due to the proposed p4.10-14 (Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results). The freeway oper depending on the peak hour, direction, and segment, ranging from on US-101 would exceed their CMP LOS standard (LOS E) with the proposed project under existing plus project conditions: Northbound US-101 South Airport Blvd On Ramp to E. Grand Ave/Poletti WayLOS F (AM peak hour) Northbound US-101 Grand Ave/Airport On to Oyster OffLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Northbound US-101 North of Oyster Point BoulevardLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 Oyster OffLOS F (AM peak hour) Southbound US-101 between Oyster On and Miller OffLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 between Produce on and I-380 westLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Existing Plus Project freeway ramp volume-to-capacity results are shown in Table 4.10-15 (Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results). Under Plus Project conditions, the northboun US-101 off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way would continue to Widening of northbound US-101 mainline from four to five mixed-flow lanes from Airport Boulev Oyster Point Boulevard would expand roadway capacity, thus provi this portion of the freeway is under the jurisdiction of Caltran and approving this improvement. No additional feasible mitigatio impact. Therefore, this would be a impact. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-65 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-15 Existing Plus Project Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results Volume (veh/hr) Freeway Ramp Peak Hour Capacity (veh/hr) Existing Existing Plus Project Northbound US-101 AM 650 807 On-ramp from Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard 2,000 PM 842 1,271 AM 246 262 On-ramp from South Airport Boulevard 2,000 PM 405 482 AM 1,618 2,014 Off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way 1,500 PM 536 722 AM 1,216 1,422 Off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard 1,500 PM 763 904 Southbound US-101 AM 934 1,145 On-ramp from Produce Avenue 3,300 PM 1,733 2,370 AM 531 711 Off-ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue 1,500 PM 531 674 AM 208 496 Off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue 1,500 PM 419 530 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = volume exceeds capacity; shaded = potentially significant impact Impact 4.10-3 Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic 1 percent to the freeway ramp volume for the northbound US-101 off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way, a ramp already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions, resulting in a significant project contr under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Recent improvements to the northbound US-101 off-ramp to East Gr lane to two expand roadway capacity and provide acceptable opera . Add a second off-ramp lane from northbound US-101 at Grand Aven capacity of the off-ramp to serve future demand. 4.10.5Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact analysis is only provided for those threshol potentially significant, or significant and unavoidable impact. provided for Effects Found Not to Be Significant, which result i South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-68 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Cumulative Baseline Conditions Cumulative baseline turning movement and freeway segment volumes facilities were obtained from the East of US-101 Traffic Study representing the Long Term Cumulative (2035) plus Oyster Point Redevelopment Conditions. These volumes model that was built from the C/CAG model framework with a speci distribution assumptions based on recent surveys and knowledge o model was calibrated to account for local conditions prior to ge forecasts. The future year model includes planned infrastructure projects and accounts for the increase in traffic demand served through the study area due to these improv EMME/2 software platform along with recent land use and road net regional and local demand to 2035. For the study facilities that were not studied as part of the East US-101 Traffic Study, adjustments based on regional growth factors were applied to ensure consiste Cumulative Land Use Assumptions and Roadway Improvements The cumulative baseline conditions described in the East of US-101 Traffic Study contain land use forecasts that account for growth envisioned as part of the Sout guiding documents. The land use assumptions were provided by the City o March 2009. None of the land use or development changes associat included in the East of US-101 cumulative baseline conditions. These baseline conditions represen cumulative no project conditions for the proposed project. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection turning movement volumes for cumulative no project Figure 4.10-8A and Figure 4.10-8B (Cumulative No Project Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volumes). Project volumes are added to cumulative no project volumes f conditions. The cumulative plus project volumes are shown on Fig4.10-9B (Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volumes). Cumulative No Project Intersection Operations The intersection LOS analysis results for cumulative conditions 4.10-16 (Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS Result). The LOS results show tha intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable intersection growth without the study area: 1. Miller Avenue/Linden AvenueLOS F during the PM peak hour 6. E. Grand Avenue/Gateway BoulevardLOS F during the AM and PM peak hours 10. Grand Avenue/Airport BoulevardLOS F during the AM and PM peak hours 12. Baden Avenue/Linden AvenueLOS F during the AM and PM peak hours 14. San Mateo Avenue/Airport BoulevardLOS F during the PM peak hour 15. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway BoulevardLOS E during the AM peak hour City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-69 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic 16. US-101 NB/South Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/South Airport BoulevardLOS F during the AM and PM peak hours Table 4.10-16 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS Results Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Control AM PM AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS aaaa 1.Miller Ave/Linden Ave Signal 47.6 D >80 (1.17) F 72.6 E >80 (1.27) F 2.Miller Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 27.7 C 22.0 C 29.2 C 32.9 C 3.Miller Ave/Spruce Ave Signal 18.2 B 24.6 C 21.5 C 20.6 C 4.Grand Ave/Dubuque Ave Signal 8.1 A 11.4 B 7.9 A 18.9 B 5.Grand Ave/E. Grand Ave Signal 24.2 C 17.5 B 27.0 C 62.8 E 6.E. Grand Ave/Gateway Blvd Signal >80 (1.35) F >80 (1.12) F >80 (1.45) F >80 (1.34) F 7.Grand Ave/Spruce Ave Signal 17.9 B 27.9 C 24.8 C 78.2 E 8.Grand Ave/Maple Ave Signal 10.4 B 11.9 B 13.3 B 22.4 C 9.Grand Ave/Linden Ave Signal 14.0 B 21.6 C >80 (1.12) F >80 (2.74) F 10. Grand Ave/Airport Blvd Signal >80 (1.17) F >80 (1.01) F >80 (1.53) F >80 (1.39) F 11. E. Grand Ave/US-101 NB off- SSS 11.7 B 8.5 A 11.7 B 8.5 A ramp/Poletti Way 12. Baden Ave/Linden Ave Signal >80 (1.37) F >80 (1.28) F >80 (1.47) F >80 (1.43) F 13. Baden Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 31.6 C 26.0 C 40.0 D 52.6 D 14. San Mateo Ave/Airport Blvd Signal 38.0 D >80 (1.13) F 39.3 D >80 (1.35) F 15. South Airport Blvd/ Gateway Signal 74.6 E 42.5 D >80 (1.11) F >80 (1.07) F Blvd 16. US-101 NB/South Airport Blvd Signal >80 (1.12) F >80 (1.01) F >80 (1.20) F >80 (1.06) F Off Ramp/ South Airport Blvd SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = unacceptable LOS; shaded = potentially significant impact; SSS = side-street stop a.For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weight per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled intersection, the delay shown is the wors-operating approach delay. For intersections performing at LOS F, Volume/Capacity ratio for the overall intersection is shown in parentheses. These results are generally consistent with previous studies in Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Operations New vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would add tr some movements that are expected to operate at LOS E or F withou trips would cause the overall intersection LOS at several intersec significantly worsen compared to the cumulative no project condi impacts as described below. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-70 91 (91)927 (119) 102 (263)145 (216) 39 (26)79 (159) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 14 (8)257 (96) 113 (136)198 (884) 29 (38)35 (203) 1,012 (490)17 (80) 136 (316)83 (133) 35 (112)226 (300)59 (37) Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 17 (67) 529 (408)54 (138) 58 (61)53 (61) 25 (26)90 (180) 182 (282)190 (279) 36 (42)25 (87) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 12 (14)98 (55)32 (29) 267 (358)153 (298) 51 (64)105 (333)40 (63) 100027545 | 1,318 (597)513 (364) 856 (68)160 (206) 213 (185) Produce Ave. 101 NB Off-Ramp Poletti Wy.Airport Blvd. 163 (189) 723 (1,185) 74 (95) 15 (15) 215 (170) 276 (433)280 (327) 453 (527) 115 (273)219 (468) 35 (45) Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. Airport Blvd. 94 (117) 777 (243) 21 (2) 575 (956)544 (722) 527 (365) 104 (324) 257 (309) 129 (146) 43 (53) 271 (238)787 (135) 80 (226) 132 (154)942 (277) 23 (56) 76 (105)448 (502) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave. Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 94 (106) 176 (130)6 (7) 253 (294) 205 (193)178 (433) 59 (136) 39 (67)289 (1,088) 100027545 | 95 (98)927 (119) 102 (263)145 (216) 39 (26)104 (278) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 14 (8)257 (96) 113 (136)198 (884) 29 (38)45 (221) 1,012 (490)19 (82) 136 (316)83 (133) 120 (308)340 (819)66 (48) Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 28 (80) 530 (410)58 (143) 63 (69)58 (68) 39 (49)93 (186) 182 (282)190 (280) 41 (49)29 (91) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 12 (14)98 (55)34 (31) 267 (358)162 (309) 51 (64)105 (333)46 (71) 100027545 | 1,714 (783)801 (475) 856 (68)160 (206) 213 (185) Produce Ave. 101 NB Off-Ramp Poletti Wy.Airport Blvd. 244 (206) 838 (1,408) 77 (99) 15 (15) 220 (177) 311 (558)280 (327) 539 (719) 133 (304)219 (468) Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. Airport Blvd. 94 (117) 908 (300) 21 (2) 732 (1,147)544 (722) 557 (408) 120 (401) 268 (329) 155 (191) 47 (59) 272 (240)787 (135) 87 (239) 136 (161)1,101 (338) 23 (56) 77 (107)495 (582) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave. Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 102 (117) 189 (146)6 (7) 262 (306) 211 (201)194 (510) 69 (149) 41 (71)394 (1,623) 100027545 | Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project vehicle queues are shown in Table 4.10-17 (Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections). Under No Project conditions, the following intersections have movements th with 95 percentile queues that exceed their storage capacity during the s: #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard #16: US-101 Northbound/South Airport Blvd Off Ramp/South Airport th Under Plus Project conditions, several movements which already have 95 percentile queues exceeding capacity under No Project conditions are expected to worsen with th Additionally, several new movements will have 95 percentile queues that exceed storage capacity during the AM and/or PM peak hours at the following intersections: #2: Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard #10: Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard #14: San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard #15: South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard #16: US-101 Northbound/South Airport Blvd Off Ramp/South Airport Table 4.10-17 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Volume Increase tha Storage Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project IntersectionMovement Distance (feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour 2. Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Right Turn 680 137 61 179 146 Westbound Left Turn 465 235 54 273 92 Westbound Through 465 132 307 138 346 Northbound Through 220 66 111 94 356 Southbound Through 360 218 80 231 176 Southbound Right Turn 360 31 20 35 36 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-79 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-17 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Volume Increase tha Storage Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project IntersectionMovement Distance (feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour 10. Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Through 665 755 375 1,161 535 49% Eastbound Right Turn 665 36 36 90 40 Westbound Left Turn 670 189 469 209 720 Westbound Through 670 276 716 376 1,263 41% Westbound Right Turn 240 61 85 61 257 Northbound Left Turn 150 38 56 Northbound Through 410 255 335 302 320 Northbound Right Turn 410 188 80 Southbound Left Turn 390 446 124 547 111 17% Southbound Through 390 271 195 188 98 Southbound Right Turn 180 39 20 11. E. Grand Avenue/US-101 NB off-ramp/Poletti Way. Side-Street Stop Intersection, no queues reported 14. San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 150 135 139 143 148 Eastbound Through 370 115 119 139 125 Eastbound Right Turn 150 50 111 52 69 Westbound Left Turn 225 136 667 156 577 24% Westbound Through 810 217 195 228 174 Westbound Right Turn 85 88 86 105 82 27% Northbound Left Turn 130 222 258 222 183 0% 0% Northbound Through 300 110 111 303 128 Southbound Left Turn 150 154 163 233 134 50% Southbound Through 1,550 395 538 481 873 Southbound Right Turn 1,550 30 29 13 17 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-80 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-17 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Interchange Intersections 95 Percentile Queue (feet) Volume Increase tha Storage Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project IntersectionMovement Distance (feet) AM PM AM PM AM PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour Peak Hour 15. So. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn 140 59 52 336 122 Eastbound Through 730 243 95 206 101 Eastbound Right Turn 730 114 40 73 73 Northbound Left Turn 300 93 153 91 166 Northbound Through 930 550 112 808 126 Northbound Right Turn 930 0 0 0 0 16. US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off-Ramp/So. Airport Blvd Eastbound Left Turn 800 1,017 257 1,154 321 13% Eastbound Through 800 997 254 1,172 326 0% Eastbound Right Turn 150 98 27 105 27 Westbound Through 200 106 186 106 186 Westbound Right Turn 200 24 27 24 27 Northbound Left Turn 295 299 682 299 698 0% 0% Northbound Through 635 143 162 143 162 - Southbound Left Turn 100 151 154 148 143 0% 0% Southbound Through 1,080 374 512 374 447 Southbound Right Turn 125 63 240 70 254 24% SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = 95 percentile queue exceeds storage length. Shaded = Potentially significant impact. th a. Volume Increased is calculated as the increase in volume for tha are already exceeding storage under baseline conditions. Impact 4.10-4 Implementation of the Specific Plan could conflict ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system under cumulative plus proj conditions. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementa mitigation would reduce impacts to most intersections to , but impacts would remain for one intersection. The proposed project would result in the addition of project tra Avenue/Linden Avenue and cause it to degrade from LOS D to LOS E the PM peak hour, the addition of project traffic (6 percent increas LOS F under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, which would exacerba PM peak hour under cumulative plus project conditions. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-81 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.10-9 would reduce this level. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would improve operations at #1 Miller Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would an acceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak Repurpose the eastbound and westbound approaches to include one right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Mill This lane modification would not require any additional right-of-way. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addit th Miller Avenue/Airport Boulevard that would cause the 95 percentile queue for the northbound through to exceed its storage capacity during the PM peak hour under cum would cause the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS C a the PM peak hour. Implementation of the following mitigation measure level. A signal timing adjustment to optimize cycle length and redistr vehicle volumes would reduce delay at the intersection, and impr Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addi Grand Avenue/East Grand Avenue that would increase total traffic 25 percent and deteriorate operations from LOS B to LOS E under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce level. A signal timing adjustment to redistribute green time to better reduce delay at the intersection, and improve operations at this intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM pea Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addition of increase) to intersection #6 E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard, which unacceptable LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative mitigation measure would improve operations during the AM peak hour to LOS peak hour to LOS F, but at a lower delay than without Project traffic. The additi typically recommended as an urban intersection treatment; theref need to be explored, or unacceptable operations may be accepted. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce level. Construct an additional northbound right-turn lane, southbound turn pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at E. Grand Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addition of increase) to intersection #7 Grand Avenue/Spruce Avenue and cause i LOS E in the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. not require any additional right-of-way. This lane modification South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-82 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic improve operations at #7 Grand Avenue/Spruce Avenue This would c an acceptable LOS C in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce level. Convert the westbound approach to include one left-turn lane and one through-right shared lane. Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addit increase) to intersection #9 Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue and cause it t LOS F in the AM peak hour and from LOS C to LOS F in the PM peak hou Project Conditions. This lane modification would not require any addit modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce delay at at #9 Grand Avenue/Linden Avenue. This would cause the intersect LOS D in the AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this im level. Modify the eastbound and westbound approach to each have one le right shared lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addit increase) to intersection #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard, which wo LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative Plus Project Cond th project would exacerbate the 95 percentile queues for several movements during the AM and PM pe hours. Although implementation of the following mitigation measure woul intersection, not all queue lengths are reduced to acceptable le Therefore, this impact would be considered during the AM and PM peak hours. This mitigation measure would improve operations during the AM a would still operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM and P than without project traffic. However, implementation of the ide reduce all queuing impacts. The addition of several lanes is not typically recommended as an alternative mitigation measures may need to be explored, or unac Modify the eastbound approach to include one left-turn pocket, pocket, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at Grand Avenue/Airp modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehicle d operations at #10 Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard. Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addi increase) to intersection #12 Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue, which would City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-83 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative Plus Project Cond adjustment would reduce delay at the intersection, and improve o Avenue/Linden Avenue This would cause the intersection to operatAM peak hour and at LOS D during the PM peak hour. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this im level. Retime and optimize the traffic signals at Baden Avenue/Linden Avenue. Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addition of increase) to intersection #14 San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard, w unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project th project would exacerbate the 95 percentile queues for several movements during the AM and PM pe hours. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce level. Although implementation of the following mitigation measu intersection, not all queue lengths are reduced to acceptable le Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavo hours. This lane modification and signal timing adjustment would and improve operations at #14 San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boulevard however, the intersection would still operate at an unacceptable project traffic. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure doe queuing impacts and the impact would remain . The addition of several lanes is not typically recommended as an urban intersection trea measures may need to be explored, or unacceptable operations may Construct an additional westbound left-turn lane, provide a nor, and retime and optimize the traffic signals at San Mateo Avenue/Airport Boul Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addition of 22 percent increase) to intersection #15 So. Airport Boulevard/Gat degrade from LOS E to LOS F in the AM peak hour and from LOS D t under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Furthermore, the project wou th turn 95 percentile queue exceeding storage capacity for the movement du lane modification and signal timing adjustment would reduce vehi improve operations at #15 So. Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevar improve operations during the AM and PM peak hours to LOS E. Imp mitigation would reduce this intersection LOS impact to a level but would be considered as it relates to queuing. Implementation of this mitigation may improve queuing at the eastbound left-turn movement; however, qu available storage capacity, resulting in a significant and unavo Construct an additional northbound left-turn lane, and retime a Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-84 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Implementation of the Station Area Plan would result in the addi increase) to intersection #16 US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard off-ramp/So. Airport Boulevard, which would exacerbate unacceptable LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours th Conditions. Furthermore, the project would exacerbate the 95 percentile queues for several movements during the AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of the following mitigation would reduce overall operations to an acceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour, and an im Although implementation of the following mitigation would help to reduce not all queue lengths are reduced to acceptable levels during th modification would not require any additional right-of-way. Therefore, during the AM and PM peak hours. Modify the eastbound approach to include two left-turn lanes, o right-turn lane, and retime and optimize the traffic signal at US-101 NB/So. Airport Boulevard Off Ramp/So. Airport Boulevard to reallocate green time to bette Cumulative Freeway Operations The cumulative freeway mainline operations under the cumulative and plus project conditions are presented below. The freeway ana are presented in Table 4.10-17 (Cumulative Plus Project Freeway operation LOS would vary depending on the peak hour, direction, and segmen LOS F. Several segments on US-101 would exceed their CMP LOS threshold (LOS E) with the proposed project under cumulative plus project conditions: Northbound US-101 I-380 to South Airport Blvd off-rampLOS F (AM peak hour) Northbound US-101 Between S Airport Blvd rampsLOS F (AM peak hour) Northbound US-101 South Airport Blvd on-ramp to E Grand Avenue/Poletti WayLOS F (AM peak hour) Northbound US-101 Between Grand rampsLOS F (AM peak hour) Northbound US-101 Grand/Airport on-ramp to Oyster off-rampLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Northbound US-101 North of Oyster Point BoulevardLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 Oyster Point Boulevard off-rampLOS F (AM peak hour) Southbound US-101 Between Oyster off-ramp and Airport on-rampLOS F (AM peak hour) Southbound US-101 Airport Boulevard on-rampLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 between Oyster on-ramp and Miller off-rampLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 Produce/Airport off-rampLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 between Produce rampsLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Southbound US-101 between Produce on-ramp and I-380 westLOS F (AM and PM peak hours) Freeway operations along US-101 are expected to worsen in the Cumulative scenario compared to t existing conditions due primarily to higher mainline volumes traveling through South San Francisco due to projected regional population and employment growth. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-85 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Impact 4.10-5 Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic 1 percent to the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E on one northbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greate 1 percent of the freeway segment volume to a segment already opera LOS F under No Project Conditions on five northbound segments and fi southbound segments of US-101. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be under cumulative conditions. As noted in Table 4.10-18 (Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results), the p project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to elevenUS-101 during the AM and PM peak hours. Widening of the US-101 mainline from four to five mixed-flow lan Point Boulevard would expand roadway capacity. This improvement City, is neither planned nor funded, and is not guaranteed to be this freeway improvement would likely be part of a larger, regio project would be inconsistent with regional policies related to encouragement of non-auto travel modes. Since no other feasible freeway segment conditions to acceptable levels, this impact wou. Impact 4.10-6 Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic 1 percent of the freeway ramp volume and deteriorate LOS from E to one southbound US-101 ramp during the PM peak hour. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. Therefore, the impac be under cumulative conditions. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project freeway ramp volume-to-capacity results are shown in Table 4.10-19 (Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Ramp Volume-to-Capacity Results). Under Plus Project conditions, the following US-101 ramp is forecasted Southbound US-101 >On-ramp from Produce Avenue PM peak period Expanding US-101 on-ramps and off-ramp from one lane to two or from two lanes to expand roadway capacity, and thus provide acceptable operations. with regional policies related to encouraging infill development travel modes. Such a project is neither planned nor funded and i additional feasible mitigation is available to provide acceptabl Therefore, this impact is considered . South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-86 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-18 Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Peak Freeway Segment Type Hour Volume V/C Density LOS Volume V/C Density LOS abab Northbound US-101 AM 13,710 >1.00 F 14,312 >1.00 F I-380 to South Airport Blvd Off Basic PM 8,017 0.62 22.30 C 8,344 0.64 23.26 C AM 11,559 >1.00 F 11,955 >1.00 F Between S Airport Blvd Ramps Basic PM 7,213 0.67 24.21 C 7,399 0.68 24.91 C AM 11,559 >1.00 F 11,955 >1.00 F South Airport Blvd On Ramp to Weave E Grand Ave/ Poletti Way PM 7,213 0.87 41.27 E 7,399 0.90 45.00 E AM 9,773 >1.00 F 9,789 >1.00 F Between Grand ramps Basic PM 7,445 0.86 33.87 D 7,522 0.87 34.43 D AM 9,773 >1.00 F 9,789 >1.00 F Grand/Airport On to Oyster Off Weave PM 7,445 >1.00 F 7,522 >1.00 F AM 8,655 1.00 44.85 E 8,828 >1.00 F Between Oyster Point ramps Basic PM 7,850 0.91 37.01 E 8,356 0.96 41.64 E AM 8,655 >1.00 F 8,828 >1.00 F North of Oyster Point Weave PM 7,850 >1.00 F 8,356 >1.00 F Southbound US-101 AM 13,342 >1.00 F 13,342 >1.00 F Oyster Point Blvd Off Ramp Basic PM 8,408 0.97 42.17 E 8,408 0.97 42.17 E AM 10,886 >1.00 F 10,886 >1.00 F Between Oyster Off and Airport Basic On PM 7,963 0.92 37.97 E 7,963 0.92 37.97 E AM 11,606 >1.00 F 10,886 >1.00 F Airport Blvd On Ramp Basic PM 8,693 >1.00 F 7,963 0.92 37.97 E AM 12,326 >1.00 F 11,606 >1.00 F Between Oyster On and Miller Weave Off PM 9,423 >1.00 F 8,693 >1.00 F AM 12,523 >1.00 F 11,803 >1.00 F Produce/Airport Off Basic PM 10,800 >1.00 F 10,070 >1.00 F AM 12,954 >1.00 F 11,372 >1.00 F Between Produce Ramps Basic PM 11,555 >1.00 F 9,315 >1.00 F AM 12,954 >1.00 F 11,372 >1.00 F Between Produce on and Weave I-380 west PM 11,555 >1.00 F 9,315 >1.00 F SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = unacceptable LOS; shaded = potentially significant impact a. Freeway segment level of service based on volume to capacity rat Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010. b. Density for each segment is shown in passenger car equivalents p City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-87 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Table 4.10-19 Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Ramp Volume-to- Capacity Results Volume (veh/hr) Freeway Ramp Peak Hour Capacity (veh/hr) Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Northbound US-101 AM 844 1,001 On-ramp from Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard 2,000 PM 1,213 1,642 AM 388 404 On-ramp from South Airport Boulevard 2,000 PM 897 974 AM 2,174 2,570 Off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way 3,000 PM 665 851 AM 2,151 2,357 Off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard 3,000 PM 804 945 Southbound US-101 AM 1,305 1,516 On-ramp from Produce Avenue 3,300 PM 2,854 3,491 AM 1,010 1,190 Off-ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue 1,500 PM 748 891 AM 431 719 Off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue 1,500 PM 755 866 SOURCE: Fehr & Peers (2014). Bold = Volume exceeds capacity. Shaded = Potentially significant impact. 4.10.6References Fehr & Peers. 2012. Parking Recommendations for the South San Francisco Station Area P, December 21. http://www.ssfDowntownplan.org/storage/SSF_SALUP_ParkingMemo_122. . 2014a. Level of Service Worksheets, South San Francisco Caltrain Statio, April. . 2014b. Plan+ Application for Study Area and Methodology Validation: EIR Transportation Analysis Assumptions, South San Francisco Caltrain Station Area Plan EIR, April. . 2014c. Traffic Counts, South San Francisco Caltrain Station Area Plan EIR, April. th Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2012. Trip Generation Manual, 9 ed. San Mateo County. 2000. San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan, October. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Chapter 4 (Transportation). TJKM Transportation Consultants (TJKM). 2011. Traffic Study for the East of US-101 Area in the City of South San Francisco. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-88 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity ManualSpecial Report 209. . 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.10-89 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.10 Transportation/Traffic [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.10-90 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems 4.11UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental eff implementation of the proposed project. For purposes of this EIR four subsections: (1) water supply, storage, and distribution; ( treatment; (3) solid waste collection and disposal; and (4) energy ( Cumulative impacts are addressed at the end of each respective subsect general, actual development under any area plan is substantially limit of development because of building and zoning restrictions market forces. Specific to this analysis, it is assumed that 25 constructed at build-out in 2035. No comment letters addressing utilities/se in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) circulated for th Water This section describes the current status of water facilities an services to meet the current needs of the City. Data for this section were taken from the Utilities and Public S Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan or proposed p Supply Assessment prepared by Yarne & Associates for California Water S (June 25, 2014), attached as Appendix F, and other relevant docu reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4 4.11.1Environmental Setting As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) the following E describes the physical environmental conditions in the City of Sout environmental analysis commenced. It constitutes the baseline ph South San Francisco will determine whether a water facilities or Water Delivery, Treatment, and Storage The Regional Water System (RWS) is geographically delineated bet the Bay Area water system facilities. The Hetch Hetchy Project i hydroelectric generation and transmission facilities, and water Hetchy Valley west to the Alameda East Portal of the Coast Range Area water system generally consists of the facilities west of A Alameda and Peninsula watershed reservoirs, two water treatment Customers. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems The RWS consists of more than 280 miles of pipeline and 60 miles pump stations, and two water treatment plants, and comprises three conveyance systems: the Hetch Hetchy System, the Alameda System, of South San Francisco receives its water through the Hetch Hetc System, water is diverted from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir into a ser Sierra Nevada to the San Joaquin Pipelines that cross the San Jo which connects to the Alameda system at the Alameda East Portal. In May 2002, the SFPUC adopted a 2.9 billion dollar capital impr retrofit the RWS to improve system reliability and to ensure seismic s many parts of the RWS are 75 to 100 earthquake faults. For this reason AB 1832, which amended the state to adopt and implement the CIP, singled out nine key projects am for quick action. These nine projects are intended to ensure tha system can remain relatively intact and continue to deliver wate that depend on it. Additionally, the cost to make these improvements is delivered between San Francisco and its regional customers in Al counties (BAWSCA 2014). Local Water System The City of South San Francisco is served by the Cal WaterBayshore District. Cal Water obtains water from a combination of a purchasing agreement with SFPUC, which i Hetchy RWS, and from Cal Water-owned groundwater wells. The Cal Bayshore District South San Francisco system includes 144 miles of pipeline, twelve stor booster pumps (CWSC 2014). Cal Water has an annual purchased water suppl 35.68 million gallons per day (mgd) and depends on the availability of Gulch and South San Francisco Districts. The water from groundwa SFPUC prior to delivery to the Cal Water system. Water Quality According to the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the the water quality for the potable water serving the City meets a Groundwater obtained from the Westside Basin would be disinfecte before it enters the distribution system, which is consistent wi municipalities that supply groundwater. In addition, the pH of t groundwater and SFPUC water) would be adjusted upward using sodi control, which is also an existing technique used in the RWS. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Water Supply Domestic Water The South San Francisco District (SSFD) of Cal Water is located approximately 6 miles south of the City of San Francisco. The di San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and an unincorpo 2010 population at 58,658, and the projected population in 2040 Cal Water receives water from the City and County of San operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC through a network of pipes, tunnels, and treatment plants. The w prior to delivery to Cal Water. The SSFD takes delivery from SFP standby metered turnouts from SFPUC transmission lines. hydrology, physical facilities and legal agreements that allocat Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on reservo obligations. The SFPUC serves its retail and wholesale water demands with an water production and imported water from the Hetch Hetchy Projec Local watershed facilities are operated to capture local runoff reservoirs include: Crystal Springs Reservoir, San Andreas Reservoir, Reservoir, and San Antonio Reservoir. The Raker Act, which authorized the Hetch Hetchy project, prohib from that project to a privately-owned utility; however, local s available for purchase by privately-owned utilities. Section 6 o That the grantee [San Francisco] is prohibited from ever selling or individual, except a municipality or a municipal water district sublet the water or the electric energy sold or given to it or h rights hereby granted shall not be sold, assigned, or transferre association, and in case of any attempt to so sell, assign, tran the Government of the United States. SFPUC is subject to the Water Supply Agreement (WSA) between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Custo 2009. The supply agreement and associated Contract are included 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and should be referenced for furt As a means of addressing the aforementioned Raker Act exclusion, Article 9.02 A. which identifies Cal Water as an investor owned utility comp claim to co-grantee status under the Raker Act. In addition Article9.02 B. states that: The total quantity of water delivered by San Francisco to California in any calendar exceed 47,400 acre-feet, which is the estimated City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems System Water. If San Francisco develops additional Local System may (1) increase the maximum delivery amount stated herein; and but not necessarily both. San Francisco has no obligation to del Company in excess of the maximum stated herein, except as such m Francisco pursuant to this subsection. The maximum annual quanti in this subsection is intended to be a limitation on the total q California Water Service Company, and is not an Individual Suppl Section 3.02. The maximum quantity of Local System Water set for reduction in response to (1) changes in long-term hydrology or ( that may be imposed by or negotiated with state and federal reso state or federal law or to secure applicable permits for constru facilities. San Francisco shall notify California Water Service the quantity of Local System Water set forth in this subsection, for the reduction. Short-term changes in hydrologic conditions such as drought and other provisions of the supply agreement including the two tiere Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) membershi agreement (Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.3.6). Water Treatment SFPUC Purchased Water. The SSFD purchases approximately 90 percent of its treated water supplies from SFPUC as agreed upon in the current Water Sales Agreement an (ISG). The balance of its supply (approximately 1.2 mgd) is made Bear Gulch Reservoir. The purchased water is treated at both the Sunol Valley WTP and currently engaged in a variety of water treatment and distributi comprise its Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), which evol Master Plan (2000). In October 2008, SFPUC certified the Program (PEIR) for the WSIP. The WSIP consists of eighty-five projects, water supply reliability needed to accommodate projected growth, system redundancy in the event of an interruption due to seismic impacts associated with implementation of the WSIP; individual p specific environmental review. SFPUC is in the process of comple expansion at the Sunol Valley WTP; once completed, the Sunol Val up to 160 mgd. The Harry Tracy WTP treats 120 mgd, but there are plans for sustainably treat 180 mgd. When both of these WTPs are operating of producing up to 340 mgd. In addition, SFPUC initiated constructi treatment plant and will be capable of producing 315 mgd. Theref throughout its service area. Supply Assurance In addition to the SSFD, Cal Water has two other districts in th and Mid-Peninsula). The three districts rely on SFPUC as the mai South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Water had a contractual agreement with SFPUC to purchase up to 4 day [mgd]) of water per year for the three peninsula districts combi WSA as the estimated average annual production of Local System W annual delivery amount to Cal Water from San Francisco. In 1984, Cal Water, along with twenty-nine other Bay Area water sup Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) with individual Water Supply Contract. These contracts provided for a through negotiation in the early 1990s between the SFPUC and Bay (BAWUA), the predecessor organization to BAWSCA. In 2009 the Mas through 2018, keeping the SAA at 184 mgd, but changing its name (ISG). istricts was 35.39 mgd (39,642 afy). Additionally, the acquisiti Los Trancos County Water District in July 2005 allowed the transfer In 2009, Cal Water acquired the Skyline County Water District, whic mgd (39,967 afy). The WSA does not guarantee that San Francisco will meet peak daily their annual usage exceeds the allocation of the 184 schedule adopted in 1993. The SFPUC can meet the demands of its retail and wholesale custo average precipitation. The WSA allows the SFPUC to reduce water emergencies, and for scheduled maintenance activities. The SFPUC an Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan in 2000 to address the Francisco, wholesale customers, and individual wholesale custome 20 percent of systemwide use. In 2010, the wholesale customers neg revised methodology for allocating supplies during shortages. (F 5.2.3, and 5.3.6.) SFPUC Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) In order to enhance the ability of the SFPUC water supply system water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability and wat System Improvement Program (WSIP), approved October 31, 2008. Th improvements to strengthen t-quality water to customers in a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable manner. Many of the w ster Plan (2000). A Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) was prepared in acc WSIP. The PEIR, certified in 2008, analyzed the broad environmen at a program level and the water supply impacts of various alter City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Individual WSIP projects are also undergoing individual project required. In approving the WSIP, the Commission adopted a Phased WSIP Vari analyzed in the PEIR. This Phased WSIP Variant established a mid in 2018 when the Commission would reevaluate water demands throu Commission also imposed the Interim Supply Limitation (ISL), whi member agencies and San Francisco can collectively purchase from Although the Phased WSIP Variant included a mid-term water supply plannin full implementation of all proposed WSIP facility improvement pr seismic safety, and delivery reliability goals were achieved as be completed in December 2015. Water Supply Agreement: Other Terms and Conditions The WSA, which has a 25-year term, addresses the rate-making met wholesale water rates for its wholesale customers in addition to shortages. In terms of water supply, the agreement provides for a 184 mgd ( period made necessary by reason of water shortage, due to drough or rehabilitation of the RWS. The WSA does not guarantee that Sa wholesale customers have agreed to the allocation of the 184 mgd C. The Supply Assurance les Contract with San Francisco. The Water Shortage Allocation Plan between the SFPUC and its who the WSA, addresses shortages of up to 20 percent of system-wide water between San Francisco Retail and the wholesale customers dur 20 percent or less. The supply agreement also anticipated a Tier 2 wholesale customers which would allocate the available water fro customers. 2018 Interim Supply Limitation (ILS) As part of its adoption of the WSIP in October 2008, the Commiss the ISL, to limit sales from San Francisco RWS watersheds to an 81 mgd. Although the wholesale customers did not agree to the ISL, administering the ISL. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems BAWSCA has developed a strategy the ISL through its Water Conservation Implementation Plan and t Strategy, separately addressed herein. Interim Supply Allocations The Interim Supply Alloca Commission based the allocations on the lesser of the projected or ISGs. The ISAs are effective only until December 31, 2018, an mgd. mgd (39,967 afy) will be shared among its SSF, Mid-Peninsula, a Districts. establishment of the ISAs and Environmental Enhancement Surcharg retain the right to challenge either or both, if and when impose Supply Guarantee The SFPUC can meet the demands of its retail and wholesale custo average precipitation. SFPUC can reduce water deliveries during BAWSCA, during 2010 negotiated the Drought Implementation Plan ( previously adopted Interim Water agreement established that during a called upon 20 percent droug customers face up to a 28 percent reduction in their available supply, wh only a 2 percent reduction. The DRIP aggregates the reduction applied to the wholesale customer wholesale customers during water shortages of up to 20 percent o not yet been adopted by the wholesale customers when the 2010 UWMP was unanimously by a BAWSCA committee of representatives from each w more water in the summer will face a greater reduction in their safety adjustments were provided to increase the drought allocat have extremely low ISG values. Much like the previously approved Interim Water Supply Allocatio 20 percent drought reduction because of the seasonal water use pat percent reduction in their available supply. By implementing conservatio City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems reduced. The SFPUC has the authority to determine that during a moderate supply reduction of 5 percent to 10 percent, it may cut back del 17 percent of the wholesale customers collective ISG. Likewise during years) resulting in an available supply reduction of 11 percent 1 plan may cut back deliveries by up to 28 However, in a joint presentation by SFPUC staff and BAWSCA staff on Ju forth goals and objectives to dry-year supply by limiting system wi 20 percent of normal delivery. The presentation identified a varie developed and be operational between 2016 and 2022 to eliminate groundwater storage and recovery, development of San Francisco g Westside recycled water project, SF eastside recycled water proj South San Francisco recycled water project, regional desalinatio Groundwater Basin Boundaries and Hydrology The Merced Formation of the Colma Creek Basin is a groundwater s Groundwater Basin, and it is popularly referred to as the Westsi groundwater basin in the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region. It the north by a northwest trending bedrock ridge through the nort The San Bruno Mountains bound the basin on the east. The San And its western boundary and its southern limit is defined by bedroc Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin. The basin opens to the Pacific Oc Francisco Bay on the southeast. South San Francisco District Groundwater Groundwater is extracted using Cal Water-owned wells from the We ten to 15 Cal Water owns the land on which its wells are located in the SS percolating groundwater in California is governed by the doctrin use, which gives the overlying property owner a common right to supply on the overlying land. The Westside Basin is an unadjudic Cal Water monitors the groundwater level of its wells. The water since 1990 due to the area receiving average to above average ra operating at less than 60 percent of total capacity. The water l wells have been placed off-line as part of a SFPUC program to de conjunctive use program. SFPUC proposes to install wells in the Water, Daly City and San Bruno not pump their wells during perio in storage. During dry periods when SFPUC anticipates reductions in its deliverable surface sup Bruno could pump their normal amounts plus additional amounts of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems installed wells to make up for the surface supply cutback. Agree been demonstrated to be technically feasible, are currently bein In June 2003, Cal Water entered into an agreement with the SFPUC program, its practicality and potential impact on the regional g recovery. The conjunctive use program was for a 3-year duration. The SSFD has six active wells with a total design capacity of 1, full-time, these wells could produce 1.74 mgd (1,953 afy). A maximum 1,000 afy, due largely to the availability of SFPUC supplies for the required shutdowns of the groundwater treatment plant for requir WSA, 1,535 afy is used as the annual supply from this source or capacity. This production level is the designated pumping level that Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (GSR Project) being dev SFPUC Proposed Conjunctive Use Westside Basin Groundwater Manage For more than ten years, SFPUC, Cal Water, San Bruno and Daly Ci a conjunctive use plan for replenishment and management of the W and cost studies were conducted along with extensive hydrogeolog feasibility of using the basin to store water during above norma years, the stored water could be extracted to make up for reduct supply. Basin storage would be increased due to three utilities pumping during surplus supply years as a result of receiving mor stored groundwater from wells it proposes to construct and opera into its transmission mains or the distribution systems of the t expended in the past years in working on an agreement among the conjunctive use plan is to reduce the quantity of drought supply the GSR project would not completely alleviate drought supply re supply from SFPUC installed wells will be less than anticipated The proposed Regional GSR Project will coordinate groundwater an South Westside Basin. This project would increase water supply r conditions. Cal Water, Daly City, and San Bruno are BAWSCA membe South Westside Basin to augment their SFPUC supplies and are ref The SFPUC plans to install up to sixteen new wells in the Westsi action cycles within the proposed Groundwater Storage and Recove with the available SFPUC supply. When SFPUC determines that ther City, in lieu of groundwater pumping by these utilities, thus le City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems During normal supply year deliver normal supplies to the participants who will also pump t groundwater basin. When imported supplies are to be reduced by S produced from SFPUC wells as an offset for reduced imported supp The SFPUC wells will only be operated to extract the previously groundwater storage gained from this reduced pumping is approxim amount of additional groundwater available in the basin, the agencies a 7.5-year dry period. Project facilities would include wells, disinfection, treatment will be paid for by the SFPUC. SFPUC will pay all operation cost During non-drought emergencies the SFPUC wells would be availabl provide additional redundant supply capacity. However, the opera paid for by the participating pumper. An agreement among all four parties was expected to be signed in and substantial completion of well projects and pipe connections completed by fall 2017. Availability of stored wet year water in precipitation levels during the next three plus years. When suff SFPUC, groundwater pumping by the three water utilities can be c supply will be available during a drought. The GSR project does not increase supplies available to Cal Wate drought reductions that SFPUC may be require under the WSA. Cal water has signed a statement of support for the project in p to participate in the Regional GSR Project. Recycled Water Recycling of wastewater is summarized by Cal Water in the 2010 S for non-potable uses (e.g., landscape irrigation) can reduce dem supplies. Currently, no recycled water is used in the SSFD. Foll future recycling for nonpotable uses. Potential Water Recycling in District South San Francisco has conducted studies to assess the feasibil program and is continuing with further investigations to determi maintenance costs associated with various stages of implementati as environmental, institutional, regulatory, and financial issue has worked on upgrading its treatment facilities to meet Title 2 Some process improvements have been made. Planned uses for recycled wee golf courses adjacent to the treatment plant and irrigation of l However, theses golf courses currently use groundwater for irrig South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems D service are and Colma are residential communities with no current use for re customers will be served with recycled water from the North San 0 acre-feet per year (afy). Cal Water will continue to participate in planning for future re Francisco, San Bruno and SFPUC and consider supporting a joint f investigate supplying recycled water to Colma cemeteries. The SSFWQCP will be at capacity in approximately 5 years and any increase capacity. Under current conditions the SSFWQCP does not have at any time in the near future. Desalination of Bay Surface or Brackish Water Cal Water developed an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (I districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continui evaluating desalination and water transfers. A summary of the de Desalination involves high pressure membrane technology to remov sources of water were considered: brackish groundwater and Bay w through slant wells). Based on the projected costs, brackish wat 5 mgd) appears to be the most attractive option for meeting Cal Wa while more expensive, may be feasible as it would provide greate Water to supply water to other BAWSCA members. Cal Water planned to conduct a more detailed siting and feasibil prepare a preliminary engineering design of recommended desalina necessary for Cal Water to refine cost estimates including: veri capacity, determining the best well location for wells, confirmi siting treatment facilities based on land availability and costs If a larger capacity facility is justified because of interested open water intake locations and determine costs. This detailed feasibility investigation and site location study proceed, Cal Water had to first obtain approval to conduct the study Rate Case request, the CPUC did not approve the projectprior to the current 2013/14 drought. Cal Water intends to reformulate it proposed approach to the CPU development of desalination project and resubmit its request sin approval of a complete desalination project. A Step by step acti estimates, alternative analyses and project termination criteria decision points. If a desalination project proves feasible, envi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems and commissioning will likely require 6 to 7 additional years; t be available for the next 10 to 12 years. Water Transfer Agreements and Exchanges The second option indicated in the ILTWSP for the three Cal Wate which Cal Water is pursuing with other agencies. Cal Water envis develop a water supply transfer agreement and address all transmissi and engineering requirements. This assumes Cal Water can enter i agency with transferable supplies that Cal Water acquire and tra Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Long-Term Supply Strategy -quality supply of water is available where and when people within the BAWSCA service area n required to support the health, safety, employment, and economic expected future residents in the BAWSCA service area and to supp and organizations that serve those communities. BAWSCA is develo Supply Strategy (Strategy) to meet the projected water needs of through 2035 and to increase their water supply reliability unde The Strategy is proceeding in three phases. Phase I was completed i the water supply issue and the scope of work for the Strategy. Phase in a report to be completed late 2014 or early 2015 presenting alter through new sources such as water reuse, desalination, water tra the BAWSCA service area. This will include an analysis of water proposed implementation plan. In 2015, BAWSCA intends to evaluat recommended plan for implementation for Phase III. Depending on selected projects may be implemented by a single member agency, by by BAWSCA. Project implementation could begin in 2016. The development and implementation of the Strategy will be coord agencies and will be managed to ensure that adequate supply is d is a supply option being evaluated by BAWSCA; so Cal Water is ex determine if a joint project is feasible and more cost effective The water furnished to customers in the SSFD is a combination of from Cal Water-owned wells. Cal Water has an annual purchased water supply from SFPUC of 35. hydrologic years, which is shared among its Bear Gulch, Mid-Peninsul Districts. The amount available to the SSFD in any given year va local supplies both in Bear Gulch and South San Francisco Distri not have a local supply. SFPUC sources are expected to provide m next 20 years. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Based on its contract with SFPUC (described in the following sec to be available for the term of the contract. Although increased leve Supply Assurance over time. For planning purposes the imported s quantity. Cal Water historically pumped up to 1,500 afy from the Westside SFPUC. This amount was not pumped for nearly 3 years due to participa program, mechanical problems with the wells and shutdown of the groundwat upgrades and re-authorization for use by the California Departme installed additional wells in the SSFD so that 1,500 afy can be Cal Water, the City of San Bruno, Daly City, and SFPUC are collabo Westside Groundwater Basin to estimate its safe yield and determ conjunctive use program. Pre quantity to pump during nonsurplus and drought periods of 1.37 m supplies are available from SFPUC, Cal Water would receive a corr SFPUC distribution system in-lieu of pumping groundwater. The WSA projected water supply for the SSFD, shown in Table 4.11-1 (SSFD Water Supplies [afy]), is based on existing groundwater and SFPUC supplies and does not inclu be obtained from implementation of the GSR Project. Table 4.11-1 SSFD Water Supplies (afy) 2010 Water Supply Sources 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Actual San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 8,013 7,762 7,130 7,393 7,769 7,959 8,264 Groundwater 452 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Total 8,465 9,297 8,665 8,928 9,204 9,494 9,799 Normal Years In normal hydrologic years the full ISG of 35.68 mgd (39,967 af) local surface supply in the Bear Gulch District is 1,260 afy. This a year supply. Cal Water, the City of San Bruno, City of Daly City the Westside Groundwater Basin, have estimated the safe yield of afy in a normal year. Based on the availability of normal year supplies, for 2035 or i the three districts is 43,530 af versus a projected supply of 42 deficiency is well within the uncertainty of the estimate, but in l adds another supply source. The projected demand as shown in Table 4.11-2 (Supply vs. DemandNormal Hydrologic Year [acre- feet]). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-13 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Table 4.11-2 Cal Water Supply vs. DemandNormal Hydrologic Year (acre-feet) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Supply SFPUC Supply 39,967 39,967 39,967 39,967 39,967 39,967 BG Surface 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,260 1,260 SSF Wells 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Cal Water Supply 42,762 42,762 42,762 42,762 42,762 42,762 Demand BG 13,839 12,622 12,975 13,348 13,743 14,160 MPS 18,911 18,613 19,143 19,703 20,293 20,915 SSF 9,297 8,665 8,928 9,204 9,494 9,799 Cal Water Demand 42,047 39,900 41,046 42,255 45,530 44,874 Difference 715 2,862 1,716 507 -768 -2,112 SOURCE: Cal Water, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco Downtown Sta (June 25, 2014), prepared by Yarne &Associates, Inc. Single-Dry Year Overall average annual demand per service in acre-feet for the S4.11-3 (SSFD Average DemandNormal, Single-Dry, and Multiple-Dry Years [acre-feet]) shows a where demand decreases during a single-dry-year and multiple-dry generally happens as a result of increased conservation requests of drought conditions by the general public. Table 4.11-3 SSFD Average DemandNormal, Single-Dry, and Multiple-Dry Years (acre-feet) Multiple-Dry-Water Years Average/Normal Water Year Single-Dry-Water Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Percent of Average/Normal Year Demand 95% 92% 90% 89% 78% SOURCE: Cal Water, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco Downtown Station Area (June 25, 2014), prepared by Yarne &Associates, Inc. Based on historical records, the local surface supply from the B approximately 351 afy in single-dry yea afy is expected to be fully available in a single-dry year. According to the SFPUC for the 2010 UWMP, there could be a 10 percent systemwide cutbac the reduction in supply to BAWSCA wholesale customers would be a 17 perce 10 percent -dry year, since storage in onably full and have sufficient carryover for a subsequent year. Historically, SFPUC supplies have not been reduced by 17 percent a drought. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-14 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems The single-dry year supply and demand values for all three Cal W Table 4.11-4 (Cal Water Peninsula Districts: Supply vs. DemandSingle-Dry Year [acre-feet]). The demand values were calculated by decreasing the target demand pr 5 percentthe percentage listed for the single-dry year as shown in Table 4.11-3, above. A 10 percent cutback in SFPUC and a loss of 900 afy from the Bear Gulch surfa supply shortfall of 2,089 af in 2015 and 3,498 -Peninsula Districts. The WSA for the SPA assumes that this potential shortfall would be b Cal Water customers as a result of more intensive demand reducti Table 4.11-4 Cal Water Peninsula Districts: Supply vs. DemandSingle-Dry Year (acre- feet) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 SFPUC Supply 35,970 35,970 35,970 35,970 35,970 35,970 Bear Gulch Supply 351 351 351 351 351 351 SSF Wells 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Cal Water Supply Total 37,856 37,856 37,856 37,856 37,856 37,856 Cal Water Demand Total 39,945 37,905 38,994 40,142 41,354 42,630 Difference -2,089 -49 -1,138 -2,286 -3,498 -4,774 SOURCE: Cal Water, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco Downtown Sta (June 25, 2014), prepared by Yarne &Associates, Inc. Multiple Dry-Years Historic demand data from 1988 to 1990 show that customers used multiple-dry years than during a normal hydrologic year. This was largely strong water conservation efforts. It is assumed that 15 percent during the second year and 20 percent during the third year of a multiple-dry- Historical records indicate that the Bear Gulch Reservoir provides an dry years; however, here is it assumed that the supply in a second d will be 350 afy is expected to be drought resistant available during multiple-dry years. According to the SFPUC reliability analysis provided to BAWSCA, systemwide cutback during the first year of a multiple-dry-year peri two and three. As mentioned, a 10 percent systemwide cutback results 2 plan, a 20 percent cutback could result in a 34 percent reduction in SFPUC supply to Cal Water. It is assumed that single-=dry year, as shown in Table 4.11-4. In the second dry year, it is assumed SFPUC supply cutbacks to Cal Water will be 20percent. In the third year, it is assumed tha Water by 30 percent. As modeled in Table 4.11-5 (Cal Water Peninsula Districts Supply vMultiple-Dry-Year Period [acre-feet]), assuming a 30 percent water supply cutback City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-15 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems supply shortfall of 5,116 af could occur as early as 2015, which4.11-5, also assumes this is the third year of multiple-dry-year scenario. Also, it is con surface supply will reduce to 250 af. As with the single-dry yea would have to be met by increasing demand reduction measures within Ca Under this scenario, Cal Water would implement Stage 2 or 3 of i its 2010 UWMP. Table 4.11-5 Cal Water Peninsula Districts Supply vs. DemandMultiple-Dry-Year Period (acre-feet) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 SFPUC Supply 31,974 31,974 31,974 31,974 31,974 Bear Gulch Supply 350 350 350 350 350 SSF Wells 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Multi-dry year period: 2 Year nd Supply Total 33,859 33,859 33,859 33,859 33,859 Demand Total 35,740 33,915 34,890 35,917 37,000 Difference -1,881 -56 -1,031 -2,058 -3,141 SFPUC Supply 27,978 27,978 27,978 27,978 27,978 Bear Gulch Supply 250 250 250 250 250 SSF Wells 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,535 Multi-dry year period: 3 Year rd Supply Total 28,522 28,522 28,522 28,522 28,522 Demand Total 33,638 31,920 32,837 33,804 34,824 Difference -5,116 -3,398 -4,315 -5,282 -6,302 SOURCE: Cal Water, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan (June 25, 2014), prepared by Yarne &Associates, Inc. As shown in Table 4.11-5, depending on drought severity, SFPUC c 10 to 30 percent. Should SFPUC reduce supply by 30 percent and SFPUC, BAWSCA, and to develop additional supplies within the next 20 years as described WSA, Cal Water could have a net shortage of supply of 6,302 afy during the thir stated previously, Cal Water will impose additional conservation meas service area. Based on historical experience, percent demand reduction through voluntary measures during drought. During a severe droug demand reduction can be achieved through mandatory rationing resulting reduction of up to 35 percent. While the WSA analysis of SFPUC supply is based on no additional redu there is some uncertainty since SFPUC notes that fishery flow re Reservoir) and San Mateo Creek (Crystal Springs Reservoir) could local supply by up to 12.8 mgd or 14,350 afy. This reduction in local supply could have a more significa effect on Cal Water than other wholesale customers of the SPFUC South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-16 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Cal Water to local SFPUC supply sources rather than the larger s deliver 9 mgd to the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. 4.11.2Regulatory Framework Federal Clean Water Act The CWA is the principal stat providing water that is both fishable and swimmable. The CWA reg discharges, regulates publicly owned treatment works that treat requires states to establish site-specific water quality standar regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dr was enacted in 1977 as a series of amendments to the federal Wat CWA Section 303(d) requires each state to identify waters that w after application of effluent limits. For each water and pollutant priority for development of load-based (as opposed to concentrat daily loads (TMDLs). The TMDL determines how much of a given pol particular source without causing water quality standards to be TMDLs are set by the state, based on the severity of the polluti Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Enacted in 1974 and implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protec Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) imposes water quality and infrast delivery systems nation-wide. The primary standards are health-b numerous toxic substances. Secondary standards are recommended t content. State Urban Water Management Planning Act The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California W Part 2.6 Sections 1061010656) requires water suppliers to develop water management plan 5 years to identify short-term and long-term water resource manage water demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. Safe Drinking Water Act California enacted its own SDWA in 1976. The Department of Healt primary enforcement responsibility for the SDWA. California Admi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems DHS authority and stipulates drinking water quality and monitori to or more stringent than the Federal standards. Water Conservation Projects Act 1985 (CWC Sections 1195011954), as reflected below: 11952(a). It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this cha California Water Code Sections 10910 et seq. SB 610 was adopted in 2001 and reflects the growing awareness of t and demand analysis at the earliest possible stage in the land u statutes of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, as well as CWC Sect Water supply planning under CWC Section 10910 requires reviewing a water supplies necessary to meet the demand generated by certain q cumulative demand for the general region over the next 20 years, conditions. For areas served by public water systems, this information is UWMP. CWC 10910 requires the identification of the public water need only be prepared if a project exceeds thresholds of develop projects of less significance from the requirements of the bill. in any environmental documentation for certain projects (as defined CEQA. A WSA was prepared by Cal Water SSFD for the proposed proje SB 221 requires the legislative body of a city, county, or local a tentative map that includes a subdivision, a requirement that a 221 as a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units or one that would increase, by at l connections of a public water system having less than 5,000 defined as the total water supplies available during normal, sin twenty-year projection that will meet the projected demand of a that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new l construction begins. Recycled Water Regulations Within the state of California, recycled water is regulated by t Control Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RW adopted Resolution No. 77-1, Policy with Respect to Water Reclam that the SWRCB and RWQCB would encourage and consider or recomme reclamation projects that do not impair water rights or benefici certain riparian habitats or supporting recreational activities. The RWQCB impleme waste discharge permits that serve to regulate the quality of re South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-18 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems quality requirements. CDPH develops policies protecting human he RWQCB permits. California Water Code Title 22 The CWC requires CDPH to establish water reclamation criteria. I fulfill this requirement. Title 22 regulates the production and use of r establishing three categories of reclaimed water: primary effluent, and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; adequately disinfec which typically involves aeration and additional settling basins coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent) whi In addition to defining reclaimed water uses, Title 22 also defi of effluent and requires specific design requirements for facili Regional Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by the RWQCB, the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Pla identifies surface waters in the region as consisting of inland streams), estuaries, enclosed bays, and ocean waters. Historic a surface water bodies in the region come from upstream discharges outflow, direct input in the forms of point and nonpoint sources (SFB RWQCB 1995). The Basin Plan describes the water quality con protection of the beneficial uses of the Bay watershed. The Basi segment of the Bay and its tributaries, water quality objectives and an implementation plan for achieving these objectives. McAteer-Petris Act (Public Resources Code Sections 66600 et seq. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (B protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay and encoura members of BCDC are local, elected government officials, public legislature and representatives of state and federal agencies. B shrinkage of the B to its authority under the McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC regulates de first 100-feet inland of the shoreline, evaluating proposals for Francisco Bay Trail Project to advance its mission of improving and its shoreline. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-19 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Local City of South San Francisco General Plan discussed below. Water General Plan Policies 5.3-I-1 and 5.3-I-2 of the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services E City to work with Cal Water and Westborough Water District to do the foll Ensure coordinated capital improvements Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation Actively promote the use of water-conserving devices and practic major alterations and additions to existing buildings, including cons industrial or commercial construction East of 101 Area Plan Public Facilities Element The East of 101 Area is to provide adequate municipal services to se development if it would exceed available service capacity. Policy PF-1 The City shall allow development in the East of 101 Area only i supply to meet its needs can be provided in a timely manner. Policy PF-2 Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping sha part of all new developments in the area. Policy PF-11 Utility companies shall be provided early notification for any that could have an unusual requirement for water, sewer, gas, el telephone services. Consistency Analysis Implementation of the Specific Plan could include the constructi pipeline upgrades, both on- and off-site, to serve future develo the Specific Plan are not known at this time and no specific dev presented. However, the water lines associated with future devel Plan would be required to be sized appropriately for the anticip appropriate peaking factors. Any impact to water demand and supp based on individual CEQA documentation. Therefore, the Specific goals, objectives, and policies contained in the General Plan an South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-20 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems City of South San Francisco Municipal Code 4.11.3Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method To determine impacts on water facilities and supply resulting fr Specific Plan, this section includes an evaluation of whether th study area falls within the Cal Water projected water demands an treatment and distribution system. It also includes an analysis improvements would be necessary and whether there will be an ade the proposed project. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have water facilities and supplies if it would: Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed. Require or result in the construction of new water treatment, di or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which c environmental effects. Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project have sufficient water supplies avail existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded enti Impact 4.11-1 There would be sufficient water supplies available development from existing entitlements and resources, and new or expanded entitlements would not be necessary. This would be a impact. The City of South San FraSSFD. Cal Water obtains water from a purchasing agreement with SFPUC, which is supplied by local surface wat from its own groundwater sources. Water is delivered to the City Francisco/San Bruno Sewage Treatment Plant. Future area water supplies would be delivered through existing City supply facilities and new water infrastructure con sites, per the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Table 4.11-6 (Existing and Potential Water Demand in Specific Plan Study A increase in demand with implementation of the Specific Plan. As 4.11-6, existing demand is calculated to be 627,989 gpd (703.4 afy). Projected demand gene Specific Plan as calculated in the Specific Plan WSA is estimated t City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-21 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems demand within the Specific Plan area (Existing and Projected), a4.11-6, is calculated to be 894,384 gpd (1,001.8 afy) This is considered a net increase in d the proposed project would construct new structures, buildings, and development. Table 4.11-6 Existing and Potential Water Demand in Specific Plan Study Area Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Uses Existing Plus Specific Plan (demand from WSA) Factor (existing uses) Land Use Water Water Water (gpd/unit/ksf) Demand Demand Demand Area/Units Area/Units Area/Units (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) Residential 207 1,436 du 297,539 1,435 du 89,274 2,871 du 386,813 a Business 60 130,000 sf 7,800 512,000 sf 18,432 642,000 sf 26,232 Commercial Downtown 195 603,000 sf 117,585 603,000 sf 117,585 Commercial Auto-serving 60 55,000 sf 3,300 55,000 sf 3,300 Commercial Industrial/ 195 797,000 sf 155,415 21,000 sf 756 818,000 sf 156,171 Manufacturing 0 Hotel 60 285,000 sf 17,100 285,000 sf 17,100 Institutional 195 150,000 sf 29,250 150,000 sf 29,250 Commercial 195 0 269,000 sf 93,940 279,000 sf 93,940 Office/R&D 195 0 1,200,000 sf 63,993 1,200,000 sf 63,993 Total gpd 627,989 266,395 0 894,384 Total mgd 0.628 0.27 0 0.894 Total afy 703.4 298.4 1,001.84 SOURCE: Cal Water, SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco Downtown Sta (June 25, 2014), prepared by Yarne &Associates, Inc. du = dwelling units; gpd = gallons per day; ksf = thousand squarsquare feet a.Inside residential water usage is estimated based on the number unit and 70 gallons per capita per day. The people per dwelling unit is base 70 gallons per capita is based on statistics compiled by the American Water Cal Water bases its future water use projections on estimates of and the amount of water each type of user will consume. The 5-ye projections for 2020 range from 5.9 mgd to 9.1 mgd. Cal Water, t continue to receive adequate supply to meet even the projected demand within As such, water demand generated with implementation of the Speci generated by the current population would be approximately 9.27 projections in the WSA for this Specific Plan and presented in Table 4.11-2, a potential shortfall occurs in 2035 and 2040; this potential defi projection estimate, but in later years will increase unless Cal South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-22 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems conservation programs or supplements its supply portfolio with t noted, that nothing in Senate Bill 610 prevents a city from appr information concluding that there is not sufficient water supply for build-ou mgd (39,967 afy) that is afy from the Westside Basin to supplement its SFPUC supplies. Groundwater is precipitation and dry years and can be reliable in all hydrologi Specific Plan would be required to comply with any measures impo targets, which would help to minimize any excess water usage wit The WSA concludes under normal year conditions that the SSFD wou the water demands of the proposed project without compromising e stated, SFPUC can reliably deliver the purchase request submitte years, Cal Water would have sufficient water supply to serve the than significant. As stated previously, the SFPUC could curtail when specific critical dry-year events occur or when multiple-dry y availability of water supplies. In the event that SFPUC reduces the SSFD would have insufficient water supplies to meet the projected wat development at the Specific Plan area, in addition to existing a area of the Bear Gulch District. In these instances, Cal Water, plan (California Water Code Section 10632) can also impose suppl subsequent stages of demand reductions to balance demand against cur In addition, SB x7-7 (the Water Conservation Act of 2009) calls for reducing deman conservation per capita in 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. Because Cal Water can accordingly in response to a regional water supply reduction and ma within its service area, a less-than-significant impact would oc proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, based on the supply and demand data in the WSA for Speci have sufficient supplies to meet the projected demand generated water supplies would be available, new or expanded water entitle impact would be . No mitigation would be required. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-23 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Threshold Would the project require or result in the constructio expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which coul environmental effects? Impact 4.11-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not require construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing fa construction of which could cause significant environmental effe would be a impact. The C purchasing agreement with SFPUC, which is supplied by local surf from its own groundwater sources. Future area water supplies would be delivered through existing C supply facilities and new water infrastructure constructed for d requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Implementation of the Specific Plan would potentially increase t area. The Specific Plan would accommodate a net increase of 1,43 (sf) of commercial uses, 21,000 sf of industrial uses, and 1.2 mil in Table 4.11-6. The SFPUC has planned for improvements to the water treatment sy and accommodate projected growth in its regional service area. T have a maximum combined treatment capacity of 340 mgd, if operat the addition of the Tesla WTP (315 mgd), SFPUC can reliably deliver 6 years. In order to ensure proper distribution, SFPUC also manages the r transport potable water supplies to the wholesale water agencies maintains all the WTPs; any improvements or expansions are the r adversely affect Cal Water, the SSFD or any of the Specific Plan water treatment facilities are required to meet water demands as the project would not require the construction or expansion of w impacts of the Specific Plan implementation on water facilities . No mitigation would be required. 4.11.4Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project have sufficient water supplies avail existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded enti Threshold Would the project require or result in the constructio expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which coul environmental effects? The geographic context for the consideration of cumulative impac water service area of the Cal Water Peninsula Districts. The cum South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-24 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Specific Plan, as well as existing and projected future growth w same as that described above with regard to project-specific imp assurances would be put in place for any cumulative development The WSA prepared for the EIR for the proposed Specific Plan proj estimated by through existing or similar uses on the Peninsula. representing a cumulative growth scenario that could occur as a project site. The SSFD currently uses 8.29 mgd or approximately 23.26 mgd allocation from SFPUC. The balance is used to meet demand in C 35.68 mgd. This analysis recognizes that in the event that the SSFD r years, it could use additional supplies available to the BASWCA aggregated demand within the BAWSCA members has not reached its supply limitations under these conditions are being enforced. The dema projects can be accommodated under normal year conditions and, i supplemental supplies from the SFPUC without penalties. As previously discussed, SFPUC can deliver an average of 239 mgd equivalent to that experienced from 1921 to 1999 with no deficiencies 12 Retail and Wholesale customers. SFPUC can reliably deliver the purchase request submitted by th or after year 2018, increased diversions from the Tuolumne Riverwater rights). As such, in normal years, the Bear Gulch District would proposed project and the impact is less than significant. Table 4.11-7 (20102035 Supply and Demand Comparison for Normal and Critical-Dry an Dry Years under with 20 Percent Systemwide Reductions to BAWSCA No Net Demand Increase Scenario with No Conservation) includes the projected future supply and demand by varying hydrologic conditions over the 25-year planning horizon through above- this assumes that demand is held to 35.68 mgd even with planned demand. The Water Supply Agreement and Water Supply Allocation Plan al water deliveries to Wholesale customers during periods of declar the historical hydrologic record from 1920 to 2002 to compare wa future. This methodology assumes that climatic history will repe will be experienced. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water Supply Master Plan (April 2000), p. 22. 12 City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-25 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Table 4.11-7 20102035 Supply and Demand Comparison for Normal and Critical-Dry and Multiple-Dry Years under with 20 Percent Systemwide Reductions to BAWSCA MembersNo Net Demand Increase Scenario with No Conservation 20% System-wide Reductions to BAWSCA Members and Cal Water Normal Year Purchase Multiple-Dry-Year Event A Critical Request Dry (Year 1) Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 mgd % mgd 20% mgd 20% mgd 20% mgd 20% SFPUC/BAWSCA Allocation 184.0 100% 115.5 62.5% 115.5 62.5% 115.5 62.5% 115.5 62.5% Cal Water Individual Supply 35.68 100% 24.04 66.8% 24.04 66.8% 24.04 66.8% 24.04 66.8% Guarantee (Allocation) a,b Cal Water Demand 35.68 35.68 35.68 35.68 35.68 c Difference 0.00 100% -11.64 33.2% -11.64 66.8% -11.64 66.8% -11.64 66.8% a.BAWSCA Allocation based on the 2009 Settlement Agreement and Mas all parties in interest. Pursuant to the 2009 Settlement Agreement a agencies will receive 184 mgd. After 2018 SFPUC could obtain additional supplies from the at this time that remains an unknown. Therefore, in order to meet potential g its member agencies must optimize conservation measures and purs stormwater and recycled water. The Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract determine members are responsible for obtaining 25 mgd collectively. b.The tentative agreement among BAWSCA members is to use the resulsystem-wide shortage, the average reduction among BAWSCA members is 26.88%. BAWSCA Table 1 REVISED - DRIP Case 16A Results Plus Options 1, 2 (corrected), and 3 (corr c.Total for Cal Water Districts. As shown Table 4.11-7, within the next 25 years during critical-dry and over multi 20 percent systemwide reduction could be imposed, SFPUC is incapable increase in demand generated by the proposed project. Under pres regional water supply conditions, if a critical dry year is decl systemwide reduction, water supplies to BAWSCA would be reduced to a such, the BAWSCA members would be required to reduce their individu Tier Two Water Supply Allocation Plan formula. In recent years, the SFPUC has delivered 265 mgd, and in fiscal approximately 254 mgdthese are above the firm delivery capabilities of 219 mgd. In te 13 In recent years (20072009), when many water suppliers declared drought conditions in their service are did not impose a limitations or supply reductions on the RWS. As adequate supply to meet all demand. It should be noted that duri2009 period, SFPUC did request a voluntary 10 percent reduction from the BAWSCA members In the event that SFPUC reduces its deliveries by 20 percent, Ca insufficient water supplies to meet the projected water demand associ project site in addition to existing and planned future uses wit District. In fact, under a called 20 percent systemwide reductio San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Urban Water Management Plan (December 2005), p. 21. 13 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-26 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems SFPUC is incapable of meeting 100 percent of the local and regio multiple-dry-year hydrologic conditions. As discussed previously in the Regulatory Setting, development w to comply with applicable Cal Water and City of South San Franci installation of low-water-use plumbing fixtures and landscaping SB x7-7 (the Water Conservation Act of 2009) calls for reducing deman capita in 2015 and 20 percent by 2020. As such, if customers in the SS conservation per capita, in the event regional supplies are reduced, addition the Bear Gulch District) may not be necessary. Water Supply Uncertainties A number of uncertainties have the potential to impact long-term Climate Change The future effects of climate change on long-term water supplies precipitation forecasts. Change to weather patterns is difficult of Water Resources (DWR) estimates in the 2007 State Water Proje 1 percent increase to a 10 percent decrease in precipitation. Both form that is takes, i.e., snow versus rain, are important. Most of snow pack in the mountains that melts over a long period of t controlled conveyance to its customers, including the Bear Gulch would alter the ability to capture water in the Hetch Hetchy Res of water flow. This has two primary effects on water planning. O amount of water available because of reduced precipitation, and flow is used to balance ecological concerns and customer demands Localized weather patterns would possibly change the amount or t surface runoff and groundwater recharge; however, it is speculat time as no model can predict local weather patterns. Climate-cha local effects on the groundwater aquifer and could change the dy the Bear Gulch District does not currently use groundwater for w the future. Pending System Improvements and Potential Policy Actions Crystal Springs, Calaveras Dam, and Sunol Valley Water Treatment planned replacement/repair projects, which would secure and impr capabilities. Although there is no specific reason that these im worth noting that delays or disruptions in these projects could assuming regional achievements in water use efficiencies are met City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-27 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems diversions fro supplies within the Regional Water Supply system. This also assu System Improvement Plan would continue after 2018 and over the r Conclusion Cal Water, based on the analysis in the WSA, has concluded that require the development of alternative sources of water supply w Specific Plan area, and that its Individual Supply Guarantee of extractions of 1.4 mgd (1,535 afy) are adequate to meet demands gene with the Specific Plan. Therefore, cumulative development would h existing entitlements and would not require or result in the con expansion of existing facilities. Cumulative development would h impact on water supplies and facilities. 4.11.5References California Water Service Company (Cal Water). 2010. Adopted Urban Water Management Plan for the South San Francisco District. . 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan South San Francisco District, June. http://www.calwater.com/your_district/uwmp/bay/South_San_Francis 2010_Urban_Water_Management_Plan_(SSF).pdf (accessed January 14, 2013). . 2014. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment For South San Francisco Downtown Sta. Prepared by Yarne &Associates, Inc., June 25. CalRecycle. 2013. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), Facilit http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/L (accessed October 9). San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB RWQC Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Basin. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2006. Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion/Co Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 23. . 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/ (accessed October 9, 2013). . 2014. SB 610 Water Supply Assessment. Prepared by Yarne & Associates for California Water Service Company, June 25. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-28 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Wastewater This section describes the current status of wastewater services Data for this section were taken from South San Francisco Downto other relevant documents and internet resources related to waste cited materials are provided in Section 4.11.10 (References). 4.11.6Environmental Setting Wastewater and Storm Drainage Wastewater Collection System The South San Francisco General Plan mentions that existing and sewer systems in South San Francisco will be able to accommodate The most recent major infrastructure improvements occurred betwe the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (W improvements were made to the facility, including construction o pond and reconstruction of two large pump stations These improve allowable capacity to 13 mgd from the current 9 mgd and will acc San Francisco 1999). Sewage and wastewater generated within the City is collec disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQC interconnecting network of approximately 12 miles of 6-inch to 3 force mains, and twelve pump stations, which function together to b homes and businesses to the WQCP. Some pump stations act as trib most of the wastewater from large portions of the community. Older problems occur when leaks and breaks in sewer pipes, or cross co result in the entrance of rainfall and other water from the stor are also some reliability issues at pump stations and areas wher hydraulic capacity and increasing the potential deposit of solid Within the City of South San Francisco, there are approximately manufacturing, wholesaling, transportation facilities and utilit consist of gravity and force main pipes of various materials inc also asbestos cement (ACP), ductile iron (DIP), polyvinyl chlori stations is within the study area. The entire study area west ofUS-101) and a small area east of US-101 at Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard are served by Pump Station 9 within the study area. Pump Station 9 then convey south and east to the WQCP, crossing US-101 at South Airport Boulevard. Wastewater within the study City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-29 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems area east of US-101 and north of South Airport Boulevard is conveyed by gravity to which then pumps via a 27-inch force main south to the WQCP. The US-101 are 6-inch VCP, while larger lines, ranging from 8 inches to 30 the more commercial and industrial area east of US-101. A comprehensive evaluation of the sewer system for the Downtown 1994. East of US-101, an evaluation was conducted in 2002 and portions updated in 20 recently in January 2012. The majority of the updates did not in Plan. Two consecutive segments of trunk line in Grand Avenue and and 27 inches, respectively, are recommended to be upgraded to 24 inche January 2012 Update. Additional capacity work may be required for the area or the Specific Plan study area east of US-101. Water Quality Control Plant The South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP, located in South San Fra project. The WQCP operates under NPDES No. CA0038130 and Waste D 2003-010. The current facility has an average dry weather flow capac treatment for 13.0 mgd of domestic, commercial, and industrial w Francisco and San Bruno, portions of the City of Daly City, and the Tow handle a peak hourly wet weather flow of 62 mgd. In 2001, the av flows at the treatment plant were 10.4 and 24.4 mgd, respectively. T San Bruno are each entitled up to 50 percent of the available treatme Additionally, the WQCP dechlorinates effluent from the cities of Burlinga Francisco International Airport, which all form the North Baysid discharge to the San Francisco Bay. The treatment facility consi sedimentation, aeration tanks, final clarifiers and disinfection combined effluent prior to discharging via the joint NBSU outfal Group 2013). The WQCP had five discharge violations during 2003, as reported During 2003, effluent concentrations of oils and grease, cyanide were exceeded. These results are summarized in Table 4.11-8 (WQCP 20032008 Violations). From 2003 to 2008, there have been a total of four violations; three occur concentrations of oils and grease, cyanide, BOD, settleable soli violations were reported during the 2004 and 2007 annual reports Solids from the wastewater treatment process are referred to as from the wastewater and microbial biomass created during treatme digested, and then dewatered. Final disposal of sludge is by tru South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-30 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Table 4.11-8 WQCP 20032008 Violations Date Pollutant Effluent Limit Reported Value 2003 * 4/1/2003 Oil and Grease daily maximum, mg/L 20 35 7/1/2003* Cyanide daily maximum, µg/L 10 19 10/4/2003 BOD weekly average, mg/L 45 52 10/11/2003 BOD weekly average, mg/L 45 54 10/31/2003 BOD monthly average, mg/L 30 37 2005+ 1/5/2005 Test 1 Specie Eff 11 Samp 90 %, % Sur minimum 70 0 th 2/15/2005 Total Settleable Solids Eff Instant Max, mL/hour 0.2 3.5 3/23/2005 Fecal Coliform Eff 10 Samp, 90 %, mpn/mL 400/100 490/100 th 2006+ 10/30/2006 Oil and Grease monthly average, mg/L 10 11.10 SOURCES: * RWQCB No. R2-2004-0075. + South San Francisco Planning Division, Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (October 2009). mpn = most probable number The City currently does not limit the amount of flow or the peak can discharge. However, the East of 101 Area Plan requires proje likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower their treatment, graywater irrigation, and other programs where feasib subject to the East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee to update any of the East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update prepared by 2012). Surface Water and Storm Drainage The study area is located within the Downtown area of South San generally slopes downward to the east, toward San Francisco Bay. within the study area is owned, operated and maintained by the C City is responsible for maintaining its drainage infrastructure to flood channels and natural creeks. Specifically, the City is responding to mandates imposed at the federal, state, and region federal level, while the SWRCB and RWQCBs act via the Porter-Col o accommodate a 10-year design storm with initial time of concentration of 5 minutes wit -year design storm under the same design conditions. Public lines are required to be with easements a minimum of 10 feet wide for a single pipe or 15 feet City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-31 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems to be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and Class III or better HDPE (minimum SDR 26) pipe. Per FEMA requirements, new development m building finished floors at least one foot above the reference F (FEMA) base flood elevation. Current FEMA maps (dated October 16, 2012) identify portions of Hazard Zones that are subject to localized flooding. Approximate FEMA Flood Hazard Zones A, AH, and X (2 percent). FEMA Zones A and AH areas are subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood. The 1 percent annual also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a 1 percent cha any given year. In Zone A, no base flood elevations (the water surf chance flood) have been determined. In Zone AH, flood depths of 1 to of ponding, and base flood elevations have been determined. Some Zo are defined as areas of 0.2 percent annual chance of flood; areas of average depths of less than 1 foot, or with drainage areas less tha levees from 1 percent annual chance flood. Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) have been identified by FEMA wit the study area bounded approximately to the west and north by Li Avenue and to the east by US-101, inclusive of Linden and Armour Avenues and limited at the west edge of US-101 (Zone A, with a small area of AH-Elevation 30). SFHAs also are from Armour Avenue at the north, along the eastern half of parce western edge of US-101, spilling over US-101 for a portion from California Avenue to Lux Avenue and extending beyond the limits of the study area to the east and so beyond the study area to the south (Zone A, with a small area of Avenue, US-101 and Colma Creek). Existing storm water drainage facilities in t several networks of pipes, primarily RCP, that convey storm wate discharge to San Francisco Bay. In general, the storm water conv storm water being conveyed primarily from north to south, and sl No other creeks or natural surface drainages are located in the San Francisco Bay to the east of the study area. To minimize water quality degradation associated with industrial Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), a c located within San Mateo County, has prepared a Best Management pollutants in their stormwater system. Compliance with the permi stormwater discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elim the property owner of all construction projects over 1 acre in s 4.11.7 (Regulatory Framework) further describes the STOPPP and NPDES pr According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisc applies to the study area, beneficial uses of South San Francisc South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-32 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems water contact and noncontact recreation, commercial and sport fi However, the Bay is listed on the 2002 CWA Section 303(d) list a pollutants and stressors listed as inflicting the Lower and Central San Fr dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), diazinon, dieldrin, dio compounds, mercury, mercury (sediment), polycyclic aromatic hydr biphenyls (PCBs), PCBs (dioxin-like), and selenium. Sources cont runoff, other nonpoint sources, ballast water (exotic species), sources, resource extraction (mercury) and agriculture. As described above, a shallow groundwater table occurs within th including the study area. Groundwater in this area is hydraulica thus, groundwater quality is closely tied with Bay water quality risk that on-site surface contamination will leach into groundwa 4.11, as well as Section 4.6 (Hazards/Hazardous Materials), further describe factors affecting gro vicinity. 4.11.7Regulatory Framework Federal Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) The major piece of federal legislation dealing with wastewater i Pollution Control Act, popularly known as the Clean Water Act, is a comprehensive statu was amended numerous times until it was reorganized and expanded almost every year. In addition to the Water Pollution Control Ac regulate the location, type, planning, and funding of wastewater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit system was established in the CWA to regulate b nonpoint source discharges from construction, industrial, and mu the U.S. For point source discharges, each NPDES permit contains and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. For NPDES program establishes a comprehensive stormwater quality pro and minimize pollution of the environment to the maximum extent CWA, authority for issuing NPDES permits has been delegated by t RWQCB in the San Francisco Bay Area. The SWRCB has adopted a separate NPDES General Permit for stormw construction activity (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). Under this p construction activity that disturbs more than 1 acre of land mus develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), conduct moni City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-33 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems records of the monitoring, report incidences of noncompliance, a The SWPPP must address both grading/erosion impacts and nonpoint development project, including post-construction impacts and sam Individual projects proposed under the 2006 FMPU that would dist be required to obtain and comply with a NPDES General Permit for con Stormwater NPDES permitting for certain classes of industrial ac activity, are regulated under the Industrial Activities General Permit No. CAS612008). To comply with the conditions of this per submit a NOI, develop a SWPPP, and conduct stormwater monitoring reports by July 1 of each year. CAS612008, Order No. R2-2009-0074, originally issued in 1999) for stormwater quality managem STOPPP and its NPDES Per State The operation of treatment plants is subject to regulations set Francisco Bay (SFB) RWQCB. Pretreatment Program and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Progra The State mandates a Pretreatment Program and a Storm Water Poll are administered by the Water Quality Control Plant environmenta regulate and control the concentrations of wastewater and stormw commercial, and residential dischargers. Pollution prevention information well as schools and businesses within the service area. These pr (Water Quality Control) of the SSFMC, which is described in City of Code. Regional Regional Water Quality Control Board Under the SFB RWQCB NPDES permit system, all existing and future discharges to surface waters within the City are subject to regu all development within the City is subject to the provisions of NPDES storm water permit was issued by SFB RWQCB for municipal s discharges for the San Francisco Bay Region of San Mateo County. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-34 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Local General Plan Public Facilities and Services Implementation of the Specific Plan would be consistent with the Plan are listed below: Guiding Policies: Wastewater Policy 5.3-G-4 Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of th system to meet projected needs. Policy 5.3-G-5 Promote the equitable sharing of the costs of associated with p wastewater service to new development. Policy 5.3-G-6 Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management pracs. Implementing Policies: Wastewater Policy 5.3-I-4 Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the ext of growth. The need for capital improvements to the wastewater sys necessarily be linked to the extent and timing of growth, if suf be provided. This requires the continuous monitoring of very dyn both development and system capacity. Policy 5.3-I-5 Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share cos providing wastewater service to new development in South San Franc Policy 5.3-I-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality various federal, state, and regional standards; treatment costs wo affordable. Policy 5.3-I-7 Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to g quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling pretreatment, or other means as necessary. closely monitored for quantity and concentrations of pollutants. Noncompliance with various numerou industrial growth may make it difficult to achieve the standards total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations over time, linkages need to be established. Industrial discharges also place enormou providing this service should also be closely monitored to ensur remains cost-effective. Industrial-related conservation measures regarding monitoring of wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, state, and projects in the East of 101 Area (such as the EIR study area) th City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-35 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pretreatm intended to help limit the demand for wastewater treatment plant East of 101 Area Plan Policy PF-7 Projects in the East of 101 Area that would generate large quan wastewater shall be required to lower their wastewater treatment water recycling, on-site treatment, gray water irrigation and si where feasible. Policy PF-8 Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be individually to determine drainage and flood protection requiremen Policy PF-9 All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply with the N program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm permit from the NPDES, which may require inclusion of on-site treatm stormwater from parking areas. Policy PF-10 During the rainy season, developers shall be required to place control devices, such as silt fences, hay bales, etc. during con minimize the amount of silt directly entering the Bay or other w City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 14.04 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) Chapter 14.04 was created to ensure the future health, safety, and gener protect and enhance water quality pursuant to the CWA. The contr non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; storm sewer from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other from modifications to natural flow; and reduce pollutants in sto extent practicable. Chapter 14.08 (Water Quality) Chapter 14.08 sets fort collection and treatment system and enables the City to comply w required by the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations. Th following: To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the municipal was or interfere with the operation of the system or contaminate the To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the municipal was through the system, inadequately treated, into receiving waters incompatible with the system To improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim wastewaters an To provide for equitable distribution of the cost of the municip To prevent the exposure of workers at the publicly owned treatme system to chemical hazards South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-36 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems This chapter provides for the regulation of direct and indirect system through the issuance of permits to certain nondomestic us general requirements for all users, the chapter authorizes monit setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs. The superintendent of the WQCP is responsible for administering, provisions of Chapter 14.08. Chapter 14.12 (Sewer Rates) Under this chapter, the City establishes a system of sewer renta commercial, and industrial uses of the municipal sewer system. T sewer service and facilities as provided by the City. Chapter 13.16 (Underground Utility Installations) Under this chapter, the City Council may call public hearings to utilities should be relocated underground. It is the responsibil or renting the property with the utility in question to follow t public hearing. Chapter 15.08 (California Building Code) Under Chapter 15.08, the City adopts and modifies the 2001 Calif developments within the City. This chapter contains construction sta foundations, drainage, and grading. Grading activities require a the grading permit, a soils engineering report and engineering g City Engineer. Recommendations in these reports must be incorpor specifications. Under Section 15.08.170, construction work is restricted during the rainy seas (November 1 to May 1) so as to minimize erosion. San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) The STOPPP is a consortium of all twenty cities loca activities are coordinated through the City/County Association o The STOPPP functions under a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit (No. C quality management, as authorized by the RWQCB. This partnership municipalities to implement local stormwater pollution preventio storm drain systems. The STOPPP includes the following: Provisions for a model ordinance Identification of BMPs, including street sweeping, storm drain s annual catch basin maintenance Measures for extensive public education and public awareness City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-37 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Pollutant source identification and water quality measurement, a discharges Structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residen industrial facilities Controls for new development and construction sites and other el As noted above, the STOPPP Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) des third NPDES permit to be reissued by the RWQCB (NPDES Permit No. 2014. The SWMP, in conjunction with the reissued permit adopted enable STOPPP to meet requirements of the CWA. Because individua FMPU would apply for coverage under the STOPPP NPDES Municipal P for each individual project must to be consistent with the SWMP. Because much of Colma Creek flows through private property, the private land owners to control litter, gain compliance from indu commercial sites, minimize construction sediment, and clean and Consistency Analysis Development under the Specific Plan would be required to meet ap requirements, including those required through the 2013 Californ generation is correlated with water usage and continued water co volume of wastewater generated. New developments under implement Plan would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDE wastewater discharge requirements issued by the SFB RWQCB. The C maintain local sewer lines and perform upgrades on an as-needed analysis, it is anticipated that the increased flows from develo result in required upgrades to the reclamation plants. However, facilities would need to be constructed, a project-specific envi under CEQA to analyze any potential adverse environmental effect facility. Implementation of the Spe Public Facilities and Services Section within the General Plan. 4.11.8Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Water use and wastewater flows are related. In general, wastewat such as toilets, as well as industrial discharges, such as those determine the amount of wastewater that would be generated by th wastewater generation factors were applied for the type and amou residential, commercial, and industrial). Wastewater generation engineering study for the City of Manteca (Nolte Associates 2013 yields that would be expected during peak hour flows (largest volume South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-38 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems overestimate the quantities beyond that of the potable inflows. analysis of the wastewater that would need to be treated at the wastewater treatment facility. Wastewater impacts were then dete future wastewater flows to the capacity of the sewer lines and t whether sufficient capacity exists and/or whether there is a nee treatment systems. Table 4.11-9 (Wastewater Generated from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Bu shows the estimated wastewater generation from projects developed Table 4.11-9 Wastewater Generated from Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Uses Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Plus Specific Plan Wastewater Land Use Generation Waste Waste Waste Size Size Size Rate Generated Generated Generated Residential 189 gpd/du 1,400 du 264,600 gpd 1,435 du 271,215 gpd 2,835 du 535,815 gpd Business Commercial 25.7 gpd/ksf 129,884 sf 3,338 gpd 511,780 sf 13,153 gpd 641,664 sf 16,491 gpd Downtown 25.7 gpd/ksf 602,643 sf 15,488 gpd 602,643 sf 15,488 gpd Commercial Auto-serving 25.7 gpd/ksf 54,664 sf 1,405 gpd 54,664 sf 1,405 gpd Commercial a Industrial/ 46.1 gpd/ksf 797,055 sf 36,744 gpd 21,250 sf 980 gpd 818,305 sf 37,724 gpd Manufacturing Hotel 25.7 gpd/ksf 285,165 sf 7,329 gpd 285,165 sf 7,329 gpd Institutional 25.7 gpd/ksf 150,142 sf 3,859 gpd 150,142 sf 3,859 gpd Commercial 25.7 gpd/ksf n/a n/a 268,800 sf 6,908 gpd 268,800 sf 6,908 gpd Office/R&D 25.7 gpd/ksf n/a n/a 1,185,049 sf 30,456 gpd 1,185,049 sf 30,456 gpd Total 342,763 gpd 322,712 gpd 665,475 gpd SOURCE: Nolte Associates, Inc., City of Manteca 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Up (January2013), Appendix A (Wastewater Generation Factors Technical Memorandum), http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/pwt/engdiv/sseng/files/02%20WCMP_App-10).pdf (accessed October 6, 2014). a. Includes 187,599 sf of building space and 587,769 sf of exterior sales space for a conservative estimate of wastewate Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2014 C purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have utilities/service systems if it would: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regio Board Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatmen existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signi Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider t project that it has adequate capacity t City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-39 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirem Regional Water Quality Control Board? Impact 4.11-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed w treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Board. This would be a impact. The NPDES permit system requires that all existing and future mu surface waters within the City be subject to specific discharge to implementation of the Specific Plan must to comply with all p other applicable waste discharge requirements, as enforced by th Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would not result treatment requirements. Build-out of the Specific Plan study are wastewater to any surface water. Instead, operational discharges which would ultimately be treated at the South San Francisco/ Sa Impact 4.11-4, below, the WQCP has adequate capacity to treat wastewater ge under the Specific Plan. The wastewater reclamation plant is req Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and any updates or new permits iss pollutants allowable in water discharged from a facility. Complia that implementation of the Specific Plan would not exceed the ap requirements of the SFB RWQCB with respect to discharges to the impact. No mitigation measures are required. Threshold Would the project require or result in the constructio facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction significant environmental effects? Threshold Would the project result in a determination by the was that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capaci Impact 4.11-4 Implementation of the proposed project would require addi wastewater to be treated, but would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion existing facilities. The proposed project would not result in in projected demand. This is a impact. The South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP has the capacity to accom generated by new development anticipated within the South San Fr a capacity to treat 13 mgd average daily flow and currently rece With this capacity, projects developed under the Specific Plan would 2.5 percent increase in demand at the South San Francisco/San Bruno recycled water programs and installation of higher efficiency de cumulative water demands for the region (South San Francisco 199 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-40 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Discussions with City engineering staff indicated that there wer within the study area. The Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), that there were three recorded sewer overflow events within the scheduled to be updated every 2 years with general system audits projects completed over the past 2 years, and recommendations for the that the system will be re-evaluated during the planning stage of any pro reassessed every 10 years through hydraulic modeling and data as schedules are also provided, although no specific projects are propo Densification of development within the study area and changes i generation. The City may require computer modeling to be complet sewer facilities, and updated for the East of 101 Area, prior to under the Specific Plan. The sewer model update would identify l modified or replaced in order to support proposed development. I infrastructure installed, increased sewer flows may require upsi increase in wet weather flows. Additionally, in accordance with 97-2002, new development of any kind east of US-101 would be required to pay a Sewer Impact Fee to support upgrades infrastructure east of 101. The WQCP currently treats an average weather flows exceeding 60 mgd. It underwent facility upgrades in 2 that it has additional capacity for approximately 3 mgd. Development und increase wastewater generation by an estimated 0.323 mgd. Capacity of new developments buy into the system and is not prioritized in any development. Based on current treatment levels and the design capacity, there increase in sewage attributable to growth anticipated under builis adequate wastewater treatment facilities capacity to serve the p require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment fa wastewater collection lines adjacent to the study area not be ad project developer(s) would be responsible for constructing local respective project area. The final sewer line configuration woul Francisco. Additionally, air quality, traffic, and noise constru improvements would be assessed in each Increased wastewater generation due to implementation of the Spe the existing treatment infrastructure; therefore, expansion of e Given existing and anticipated future capacity at the treatment -out, impacts to the wastewater treatment facilities associated implementation of the Specific Plan would be . No mitigation is required. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-41 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems 4.11.9Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirem Regional Water Quality Control Board? The geographic context for the consideration of cumulative waste area for the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP within the Gener in Section 4.7 (Population/Housing), full build-out of the propo the population estimated in the General Plan for build-out of th no existing residents of the City would relocate to the Specific development under the Specific Plan would be new to the City. It percentage of new occupants would be existing residents of the C proposed project would not exceed the growth projections for the exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the SFB RWQB. Additi operates well below their design capacity, and the City would co measures that would result in a decrease in wastewater generatio development would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater trea be treated adequately. This cumulative impact is considered . Threshold Would the project require or result in the constructio facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction significant environmental effects? Threshold Would the project result in a determination by the was that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capaci The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts as service area of the South San Francisco/San Bruno WQCP within th Cumulative impacts from future growth impacting sewer line capac project basis and do not combine to create greater impacts. Shou collection lines adjacent to the study area not be adequate to s developer(s) would be responsible for constructing local mains a project area. The final sewer line configuration would be approv Additionally, Air Quality, Traffic, and Noise construction impac project would construct the necessary sewer lines in accordance with existing requiremen overall cumulative impact. To the extent that future projected g capacity of the wastewater treatment plant being exceeded, each individual impacts to wastewater treatment facilities, and any p wastewater treatment facilities would require the payment of fee systems. Future projects would be required to pay fees and devel reduce the overall impacts to current and future residents in th cumulative development on wastewater treatment would be . South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-42 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems 4.11.10References California Water Service Company (Cal Water). 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan South San Francisco District, June. http://www.calwater.com/your_district/uwmp/bay/South_San_Francis 2010_Urban_Water_Management_Plan_(SSF).pdf (accessed January 14, 2013). Nolte Associates, Inc. 2013. City of Manteca 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Up. Appendix A (Wastewater Generation Factors Technical Memorandum),. http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/pwt/engdiv/sseng/files/02%20WCMP_App (accessed October 6, 2014). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. . 2011. Sewer System Management Plan. http://www.ssf.net/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2383 (accessed October 9, 2013). . 2013. South San Francisco Municipal Code. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/ (accessed October 9, 2013). Solid Waste This section describes the current status of solid waste service City. Solid waste is defined as refuse requiring collection, rec Data for this section were taken from the City of South San Fran Francisco Public Works Department and the Department of Resource (CalRecycle). Full reference-list entries for all cited material 4.11.11Environmental Setting The South San Francisco Scavenger Company (Scavengers) is contra Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recy Company transports all solid waste from the study area to the Bl Facility/Transfer Site (MRF/TS). The MRF/TS has a permitted capa currently receives an average of 600 to 700 tons per day. Once the useable mat at the MRF/TS, the remaining trash is then transported to the Ox Mo Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill is the only remainin accept Scavenger Company waste. Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) Landfill and is permitted by the California Integrated Waste Man 3,598 tons per day, or 1.3 million tons per year. Additionally, The O total capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards (CalRecycle 2013b). is 44.6 million cubic yards, which translates to a 12-year life obtained a permit for the expansion of the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill a 2016, either the Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or opened and filled (South San Francisco 1999). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-43 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems The new Scavenger MRF/TS, which was approved in April 1999, is p maximum of 1,250 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials Company increased capability to recover valuable materials from waste being sent to the landfill. South San Francisco recycles both ho sewage sludge. The Blue Line Transfer Station has a recycling ce mattresses, and waste oil. The City of South San Francisco coord Safeways, Bell Market, and Reynolds Aluminum. Sewage sludge produced at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Sewa by combining the dry sludge with sawdust and rice hulls, produci an expected build-out population of 67,400 residents in South Sa approximately 38,000 tons of solid waste each year, based on the County (CalRecycle 2013a). Household Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste is generated in homes and businesses alike, and motor oil to infectious compounds to dioxins. Management of haza occurs under the 1991 Hazardous Waste Plan. Although most hazardous waste is generated by larger commercial generated by households and small businesses are of particular c likely to be handled improperly and disposed of in a landfill or hazardous waste education program and established a household ha county residents in 1989 (South San Francisco 1999). 4.11.12Regulatory Framework Federal There are federal regulations related to the location and operat sites. However, there are no applicable federal laws, regulation it relates to the Specific Plan. State California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRe At the state level, the management of solid waste is governed by which delegates local permitting, enforcement, and inspection re agencies. Historically, these duties were handled by the Califor (CIWMB), but the CIWMB was recently reorganized and became a ful South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-44 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Assembly Bill 939 The State Legislature, through Assembly Bill 939, The California 1989, mandated that all cities and counties prepare, adopt, and and intended policies in the areas of waste characterization, so solid waste facilities, education/public information, funding, s law also mandates that communities meet certain specific identif reduction and recycling over specific identified targets for per over specified time periods (25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent b Senate Bill 63 On July 28, 2009, SB 63 was approved, abolishing the California (CIWMB) and transferring its duties and responsibilities to a new dep Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle. This legislatio on and the Division of Recycling to form CalRecycle went into effect on Jan Local General Plan Health and Safety Element General Plan Health and Safety Element Policy 8.3-I-1 calls for reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San M Management Plan. The City has a responsibility to meet regional initiatives in order to achieve state-mandated waste reduction t existing landfill facilities. Under this policy, builders are en storage areas for recyclables into new or remodeled buildings (b recycling activities more convenient for those who use the build explore the feasibility of installing recycling receptacles in p space areas in the study area. Commercial and business parks are receptacles on their premises. The City is encouraged to explore recycling programs. South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 8.16 (Solid WasteScavenger Services) SSFMC Chapter 8.16 contains health and sanitation rules and regu premises within the City. The purpose of Chapter 8.16 is to prevent t solid waste within the boundaries of the City, except for approved dum preserve the public health and welfare of City and neighboring c identified in this chapter as the entity with whom the City has transport solid waste in accordance with the provisions of this City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-45 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Chapter 8.28 (Recyclable Materials) The purpose of Chapter 8.28 is to increase participation rates, reduce landfill dependency, and ultimately maintain a cost-effective ov program for the citizens, businesses, and institutions of the Ci appoint an authorized recycling agent, the Scavenger Company is services in the City. Also, the SSFMC does not establish recycli San Mateo County Hazardous Waste Generator Program The County Health Department, Environmental Health Division, has Generator Program since 1984 aimed at protecting public health a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) authorized the Div regulate nonpermitted hazardous waste generators in the County b Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5. The above referenced regulations require businesses generating an defined by regulation to properly store, manage and dispose of s conduct annual inspections at over 1,900 businesses in order to regulations. Division staff members also conduct surveillance an above referenced law and regulations. Furthermore, staff members24 hours to complaints filed with the Division regarding potential violation regulations. Consistency Analysis Future development under the Specific Plan project would be serv Company, and San Mateo County, which have been contracted by the disposal needs. No actions brought forth by the proposed project . 4.11.13Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method To determine the amount of solid waste that would be generated b Plan, solid waste generation factors were applied for the type a residential, commercial, and industrial) For the most conservative rates provided by CalRecycle are applied to the square footage f presented in Table 4.11-10 (Solid Waste Generated from Existing Uses and Specific Plan The County of San Mateo uses the CalRecycle solid waste generation Residential: 12.23 pounds per dwelling unit per day Offices: 1 pound per 100 sf per day Commercial/Retail: 3.12 pounds per 100 sf per day South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-46 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Industrial: 1.42 pounds per 100 sf per day Schools: 1 pound per student per day Hotel/Motel: 4 pounds per room per day Public/Institutional: 0.007 pounds per sf per day Table 4.11-10 Solid Waste Generated from Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Uses Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Plus Specific Plan Solid Waste Waste Waste Land Use Generation Waste Generated Generated Generated Size Size Size Rates (lbs/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) Residential 12.23 lbs/du/day 1,400 du 17,562 1,435 du 34,684 2,835 du 35,112 Business 0.0312 lbs/sf/day 129,884 sf 4,052 511,780 sf 15,968 641,664 sf 20,020 Commercial Downtown 0.0312 lbs/sf/day 602,643 sf 18,802 602,643 sf 18,802 Commercial Commercial 0.0312 lbs/sf/day N/A N/A 268,800 sf 8,387 268,800 sf 8,387 Auto-serving 0.0312 lbs/sf/day 54,664 sf 1,706 54,664 sf 1,706 Commercial Institutional 0.007 lbs/sf/day 150,142 sf 1,051 150,142 sf 1,051 Industrial/ 0.0142 lbs/sf/day 797,055 sf 11,318 21,250 sf 302 818,305 sf 11,620 Manufacturing Office 0.01 lbs/sf/day N/A N/A 1,185,049 sf 11,850 Institutional 0.007 lbs/sf/day 150,142 sf 1,051 150,142 sf 1,051 Hotel 0.0312 lbs/sf/day 285,165 sf 8,897 285,165 sf 8,897 64,439 lbs/day 118,068 lbs/day 182,507 lbs/day Total 11,760 tons/year 21,547 tons/year 33,307 tons/year SOURCE: CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/ (accessed October 9, 2013). To determine solid waste impacts associated with implementation future solid waste generation amounts are compared to the total landfills that serve the City to determine whether adequate capa Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on 2014 CEQA purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have utilities/service systems if it would not: waste disposal needs Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations r City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-47 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Effects Not Found to Be Significant Threshold Would the project comply with federal, state, and loca related to solid waste? The Initial Study determined that there would be with regard to compliance with all regulations pertaining to solid waste. Refer to Chapter 5 for a Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project be served by a landfill with suffici s solid waste disposal needs? Impact 4.11-5 The proposed project would be served by a landfill with s needs. This would be a impact. The Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of South San Fra waste and operator of recycling services for the City. The Scave from the study area to the Blue Line MRF/TS. The MRF/TS has a pe day, but currently receives an average of 600 to 700 tons per day. O separated at the MRF/TS, the remaining trash is then transported to The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill can accept up to 3,598 tons pe landfill has exceeded its permitted capacity of 37.9 million cubic ya (17.8 percent). However, the closure date is planned for 2018. While t currently anticipated to have capacity through 2018, BFI is perm Trancos Canyon landfill or to open and fill nearby Apanolio Cany capacity to support the buildout of the Specific Plan. As identified in Table 4.11-10, the proposed Specific Plan would produce approximately 118, or approximately 21,625 tons/year, of solid waste. This would repre 1.63 percent of the permitted maximum amount accepted at the Blue Lin Sanitary Landfill, respectively. The remaining capacity of the M the additional solid waste. Thus, the increase in waste generatee sufficiently served by the MRF/TS and the Ox Mountain Landfill a . 4.11.14Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project be served by a landfill with suffici waste disposal needs? The cumulative context for the consideration of cumulative impac service area for the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill and the Blue up to 3,598 tons per day. With the implementation of the AB 939 reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills, the amount of solid waste South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-48 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems to be 50 percent lower than actual waste production (at a minimu the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill is capable of accommodating waste gen the Specific Plan. All developments (existing and planned) gener closure of landfills once they have reached their maximum capaci system in place to monitor and respond to solid waste capacity i growth would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, neit projects proposed within the landfill service area would create associated with solid waste in the study area would be considere. 4.11.15References California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2004. Faci Mountain Sanitary Landfill. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov (accessed September 9, 2014). CalRecycle. 2013a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation and Disposal http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/ (accessed October 9, 2013). . 2013b. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), Facility/Site Li http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/SearchList/L (accessed October 9). South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. Energy This section describes the current status of energy (electricity South San Francisco analyzes the potential physical environmenta impacts created by construction of new or additional facilities Specific Plan. Data for this section were taken from City of South San Francisc Electric Company (PG&E). Full reference-list entries for all cit Section 4.11.20 (References). 4.11.16Environmental Setting Electricity and Natural Gas Energy consumption, including electricity, by new buildings in C Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in CCR Title 24. construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate e cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building the local building permit process. Local government agencies may for new buildings, provided that these standards meet or exceed City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-49 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems PG&E provides natural gas and electric service to the study area are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPU Joint trench utilities (power, phone, cable and natural gas) are These utilities are required to provide service to new customers would necessitate relocation of joint trench utilities, and cons would likely require new services be connected. The National Pip through the study area. No changes are currently proposed to the 4.11.17Regulatory Framework Federal The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) duties include t and sale of electricity in interstate commerce, licensing of hyd environmental matters. State California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20 and Title 24 CCR Title 20 (Public Utilities and Energy) contains the regulati certification. CCR Title 24 (California Building Standards) contains related to residential and nonresidential buildings. Title 24 st New buildings in California are required to conform to energy co Title rent types of residential and nonresidential buildings, with which all new buildings must comply. The energy component and a water-heating component, both expressed in terms BTU) consumed per year. The regulations allow for trade-offs wit meet the overall budget. Energy consumption of new buildings in Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in CCR Title 24. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate e cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building the local building or individual agency permit and approval proc to meet Title 24 standards. Green Building Design According to the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR T Building is follow the provisions and measures that are outlined below: South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-50 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Section 301: General 301.1 Scope. Buildings shall be designed to include the green building measu as mandatory in the application checklists contained in this cod building measures are also included in the application checklist included in the design and construction of structures covered by not required unless adopted by a city, county, or city and count Section 101.7. Section 302: Mixed Occupancy Buildings 302.1 Mixed occupancy buildings. In mixed occupancy buildings, each portion of a building shall comply with the specific green building measures applicabl occupancy. Section 303: Phased Projects 303.1 Phased projects. For shell buildings and others constructed for future tenant improvements, only those code measures relevant to the building and systems considered to be new construction (or newly construc 303.1.1 Tenant improvements. The provisions of this code shall apply only to the initial tenant or occupant improvements to a project. Section 304: Voluntary Tiers 304.1 Purpose. Voluntary tiers are intended to further encourage building prac improve public health, safety and general welfare by promoting t building concepts promote a more sustainable design. 304.1.1 Tiers. The provisions of Appendices A4 and A5 outline means of achieving enhanced construction levels by incorporating additional measures. Buildings complying with tiers specified for each occupancy contain additional prerequisite and elective green building measures necessary to meet the threshold of each tier. [BSC] Where there are practical difficulties involved in complyi levels of a tier, the enforcing agency may grant modifications f The enforcing agency shall first find that a special individual strict letter of the tier impractical and that modification is i the intent and purpose of the measure. The details of any action modification shall be recorded and entered in the files of the e Section 305: CALGreen Tier 1 and CALGreen Tier 2 305.1 CALGreen Tier 1 and CALGreen Tier 2 buildings contain voluntary building measures necessary to meet the threshold of each level. 305.1.1 CALGreen Tier 1. To achieve CALGreen Tier 1, buildings http://www/energysoft.com/ep/2007SBDHProcedures.pdf. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-51 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems 305.1.2 CALGreen Tier 2. To achieve CALGreen Tier 2, buildings 15 percent. Section 306: Voluntary Measures 306.1 Purpose. Voluntary measures are intended to further encourage bu that improve public health, safety and general welfare by promot promote a more sustainable design and high-performance education 306.1.1 The provisions of Appendix A5 outline means of achieving enhanced construction levels by incorporating additional measures. Local General Plan Public Facilities Element lan Public Facilities Element includes the following goals and p energy management: Goal 8 Adequate electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication systems demand of new and existing development. Policy 8.1 Encourage development that minimizes net energy use and consumption of natural resources. Action 8.1.1 Support the use of solar energy to supplement conventional heating systems. Policy 8.3 Locate utilities to minimize aesthetic impacts on the surrounding area. Action 8.3.1 Require undergrounding of new distribution lines. Action 8.3.2 Pursue the undergrounding of existing overhead distribution lines. Consistency Analysis Future development under the proposed plan could include the exp throughout the study area. As discussed below, an adequate suppl available to serve the proposed project. Further, all future dev comply with the provisions of CCR Title 24. Also, because PG&E h is anticipated that the electricity demand generated by future d without the need for additional construction or expansion of ene previously planned. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not confl South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-52 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems 4.11.18Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method To determine whether implementation of the Specific Plan would r natural gas supplies, the projected increase in energy demand fo using a per-square-foot or per-unit consumption rate. Table 4.11 Uses and Specific Plan Build-Out) and Table 4.11-12 (Natural Gas Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Out), below, provide electricity and natural gas out of the study area. Because demand rates are based on type an focuses upon residential (high density), retail, office and comm Thresholds of Significance The following threshold of significance is based on the 2014 CEQ purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have utilities/service systems if it would: Require or result in the construction of new energy production o expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which coul impact Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project require or result in the constructio transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, th could cause a significant environmental impact? Impact 4.11-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not r construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which coul significant environmental impact. This would be a impact. Electricity Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the use of el electricity would be used to support future development in the s electricity demanded by the proposed project, electricity demand applied to net growth under build-out of the Specific Plan, as p4.11-11 (Electricity Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Out). City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-53 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Table 4.11-11 Electricity Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Uses Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Plus Specific Plan Energy Electricity Electricity Electricity Land Use Consumption Size Demand Size Demand Size Demand Rates (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) (kWh/yr) Residential 4,866 kwh/du/year1,400 du 6,812,400 1,435 du 6,982,710 2,835 du 13,795,110 a Commercial 13.2 kwh/sf/year N/A N/A 268,800 sf 3,548,160 Institutional 5.5 kWh/sf/year 150,142 sf 825,781 N/A 150,142 sf 825,781 Office/R&D 15.1 kWh/sf/year N/A N/A 1,185,049 sf 17,893,500 1,185,049 sf 17,893,500 Industrial 7.7 kWh/sf/year 797,055 sf 6,137,324 21,250 sf 163,625 818,305 sf 6,300,949 Total 13,775,505 25,039,835 38,815,340 SOURCE: BAAQMD, (April 2010). a.Calculated as average of single-family and multi-family uses for Climate Zone 5 The total annual electricity consumption in Climate Zone 5 of th hour (kWh) per year. The total annual electricity consumption, i increased consumption that would result from projects developed be approximately 38,815,340 kWh/year. The state is currently exp delivery. These constraints are generally limited to peak demand days that for the majority of the days during the year adequate energ consumers. Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase us particular, the demand for electricity to operate residential an incremental demand from the Specific Plan would contribute to el constraints. The Specific Plan would be required to comply with contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy n buildings constructed as a part of the Specific Plan. An adequate supply available to serve the proposed project. According to PG&E, the the project area is sufficient to serve the proposed pro confirmation that existing energy supplies and infrastructure wo Plan, impacts to electricity would be . Natural Gas To determine the amount of natural gas demanded by the proposed provided by BAAQMD are applied to net growth under build-out of Table 4.11-12 (Natural Gas Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Bui South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-54 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Table 4.11-12 Natural Gas Demand from Existing Uses and Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Uses Specific Plan Build-Out Existing Plus Specific Plan Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Land Use Demand Rates Size Demand Size Demand Size Demand (kBtu/year) (kBtu/year) (kBtu/year) Residential 36.1 kBtu/du/year1,400 du 50,540 1,435 51,695 2,835 du 102,344 a Commercial 31.7 kBtu/sf/year N/A N/A 268,800 sf 8,520,960 268,800 sf 8,520,960 Institutional 19.6 kBtu/sf/year 150,142 sf 2,942,783 N/A 150,142 sf 2,942,783 Office/R&D 24.3 kBtu/sf/year N/A N/A 1,185,049 sf 28,795,500 1,185,049 sf 28,795,500 Industrial 4.3 kBtu/sf/year 797,055 sf 3,427,337 21,250 91,375 818,305 sf 3,518,712 Total 6,420,660 37,459,530 43,880,190 SOURCE: BAAQMD, Greenhouse (April 2010). a. Calculated as average of single-family and multi-family uses for Climate Zone 5. The total annual natural gas consumption by existing uses is est kBtu. The total annual natural gas consumption by projects devel estimated to be approximately 37,459,530 kBtu. PG&E was contacte increase in natural gas demand. PG&E requires a natural gas survey in demand, and only allows evaluation of project-specific impacts a will provide natural gas as customers request its services, PG&E natural gas is currently available to serve the proposed project provided to the surrounding area would not be impaired by the pr natural gas lines are required to serve future development, such underground and would be constructed in accordance with the poli file with the CPUC at the time contractual agreements are made. projected for the proposed project would not exceed available or would not be required to serve the study area. Therefore, this ie , and no mitigation is required. 4.11.19Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project require or result in the constructio transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, th could cause a significant environmental impact? The geographic context for the determination of cumulative impac c Plan have adequate capacity to deliver increased electricity dem plan (Masuoka 2013). Additionally, PG&E completed a Long Term Pr addresses all short-term and long-term electricity procurement n the electricity demand generated by future development could be additional construction or expansion of energy facilities beyond City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 4.11-55 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 4.11 UtilIties/Service Systems Because PG&E is able to meet future projected demands, and an ac address energy issues on a broader scale, cumulative impacts wou. Development in the geographic area surrounding the Specific Plan use of natural gas. The area surrounding the study area is curre that will provide natural gas as customers request its services, supply of natural gas is currently available to serve the Specif to the surrounding area would not be impaired by future developm the supply of natural gas and to the need for additional or expa. 4.11.20References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. , April. California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2010. 2010 California Gas Report. Masuoka, Bob. 2013. Personal Communication with Principal Land & Gas & Electric, October. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2013. Company Profile. http://www.pge.com/en/about/company/profile/index.page?. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 4.11-56 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study CHAPTER 5 Other CEQA Considerations This chapter presents the evaluation of additional environmental Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that are not covered within the particular, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all aspe when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, operation. Accordingly, in addition to the environmental analysi Analysis) of this EIR, the EIR must identify growth-inducing impact significant irreversible environmental changes that would result project, including any secondary or indirect impacts that could measures. 5.1EFFECTS SCOPED OUT IN THE INITIAL STUDY The initial study prepared in September 2013 (see Appendix A) id the proposed project would have no impact or less-than-significant imp exception of Utilities/Service Systems, where only one threshold regulations was determined to have no impact and this threshold 5.1.1Agriculture/Forestry Resources The study area is located in an urbanized area of San Mateo Coun commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The Farmland Mappi California Resources Agency has not designated the study area as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No agricultural uses or relate the SPA or project vicinity, and no portion of the study area is The area is not zoned for agricultural uses. No forest lands are vicinity. Therefore, there would be on agriculture and forestry resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.2Biological Resources The study area is currently developed with residential, commerci open spaces in the project area. Open space consists of develope and a portion of the PG&E transmission corridor. consist of San Bruno Mountain, Sign Hill, and wetland areas alon 1999, Open Space and Conservation Element). The City requires assess resources for development in these areas. The study area is not resources. Only a small portion on the southern boundary of the Creek Canal. The area is located south of Airport Boulevard, eas City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 5-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study Mateo Avenue. Projects that would result in impacts to the canal assessments and comply with General Plan Policies 7.1-I-2 through 7.1-I-5. Riparian habitat in South San Francisco is limited to along Colma Cr However, the Specific Plan does not propose any land use directl directly adjacent to the canal is currently in use for utility i unexpected event that a project were proposed adjacent to the ca development would be required to comply with applicable General of a biological resources assessment and implementation of mitig wetland habitat that may support sensitive species. Therefore, f Plan would not result in any substantial adverse impacts to sens Construction and development associated with implementation of t within an area containing habitat that supports biological resou would have no impact on wildlife movement corridors. Landscaping could provide potential nesting habitat for migrating birds. Fut would not occur all at once and would be spread out throughout t relatively minor amounts of landscaping would be removed at any of native wildlife nursery sites will not be substantially inter if vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 throug construction would be required to comply with applicable regulations Code (Section 3503, 3513, or 3800), which would protect nesting Landscaped areas in the study area may contain trees defined as pr Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Developmen pruning of protected trees. However, such activities would be requ Preservation Ordinance as part of the project approval process, removals or alterations, and avoiding tree roots during trenchin There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communiti approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan tha Therefore, there would be a impact on biological resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.3Geology/Soils The study area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994 and no known active or poten area. Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the locati known to traverse the study area, the study area would not be su ruptures. The City and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault could result in i Mercalli intensity scale in the South San Francisco area. Most o level of VII (Nonstructural Damage) or VIII (Moderate) from a ru San Andreas Fault during an earthquake with a 7.1 magnitude. Acc South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 5-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study General Plan, portions of the study area are located in areas po high levels of ground shaking (see General Plan Health and Safet Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands]). The structural design of state and City building code standards, such as the California B minimum acceptable levels of risk and safety. Additionally, in a Policy 8.1-I-1, special occupancy land uses (hospitals, schools, and other protecting health and safety in the community) would not be located in seismically sensitive in General Plan Figure 8-2. Compliance wit would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Because the study area is located in a seismically active region failure exists, including liquefaction. Most of the study area i susceptibility for liquefaction, except a portion of the study aUS-101 with a moderate to very high risk for liquefaction (USGS n.d.). However, proposed develo Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which include requirements for geotechn high risks for liquefaction, including mitigation to minimize ri Permit Requirements) also requires a soils engineering report and engin identify potential geotechnical hazards and make recommendations with applicable regulations would reduce impacts to a less-than- The parts of the San Francisco Bay region having the greatest su underlain by weak bedrock units with slopes greater than 15 perc is primarily located on the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain in Skyline Boulevard. Because the study area is located in an area slope instability is not a concern. Excavation wall stability would b33. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction would be depend largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavatio to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. In ad comply with CBC Chapter 18, which regulates excavation activitie and retaining walls, and CBC Chapter 33, which regulates grading erosion control. Additionally, development would continue to be required general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which, a construction site erosion and sedimentation control best managem implemented and would include such measures as silt fences, wate dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Further, development under required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mat Prevention Program (STOPP), and would require runoff management BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. Following constructio almost entirely of impervious surfaces and would not be subject The soil in South San Francisco is generally characterized as ha exception of areas at the base of the San Bruno Mountains or adj Francisco 2011). Development in the study area would not be loca expansive soils. Additionally, future development must comply wi City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 5-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study Section 15.08.140 (Grading Permit Requirements), which require a soils e engineering geology report that would identify potential geotech recommendations to minimize hazards. The proposed project would not produce wastewater that requires wastewater disposal systems. The City of South San Francisco wou service to the study area. Therefore, there would be a impact on geology and soils as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.4Hazards/Hazardous Materials Construction of development pursuant to the Specific Plan would potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, paints construction compounds. While these substances could pose a pote workers and to the general public during transport, handling of materials would occur in accordance with California Occupational OSHA) guidelines and would be disposed of in accordance with Cal Substances Control (DTSC) and county regulations. Demolition of Avenue Core, that potentially contain asbestos or lead-based pai Cal OSHA regulations, including an asbestos inspection in compli Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) requirements and requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based mat state, and local regulations regarding the use and disposal of h reduce potential impacts on human health and safety from handlin construction materials to less than significant. Adherence to ap reasonably foreseeable use and accident conditions. Implementation of development under the Specific Plan could resu laboratories and other research facilities, particularly east ofUS-101 that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as a that could be exposed to hazardous materials risks. New resident also result in limited use of common hazardous materials such as procedures for the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of federal, state, and local laws and regulations (including the fe Act [RCRA] and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law), and Department of Homeland Security and Cal OSHA would reduce the ri nearby public resulting from the routine use, transport, or disp significant levels. Similar to construction, adherence to applic reasonably foreseeable use and accident conditions. Several schools are located within 0.25 mile of the study area, and Parkway Heights Middle School. However, the proposed project wou that emit or handle hazardous materials that do not already exis South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 5-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study development and industrial uses would continue to be located easUS-101 in the study area, although development density may increase under the proposed project. Sch are located west of US-101. Additionally, adherence to existing federal, state, and local regarding the use and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes human health and safety from handling and transport of hazardous significant. According to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker there are several open and closed hazardous materials cases in t south of Grand Avenue and along the US-101 corridor. The majority of cases involve leaking underground storage tanks (LUST). Other cases involve solvents a discussed proposed development would be identified during the development Francisco 1999, Health and Safety Element). Redevelopment or development would comply with all applicable regulations for remediation of hazard guidelines of the regional Underground Storage Tank Program. Com would reduce impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites The study area is located approximately 0.75 mile north of the S (SFO). The study area is located outside of all airport Safety Compa area is located within Airport Influence Area B of the airport a requirements (see Exhibit IV-10 [FAA Notification Form 7460Filing Requirements, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco (C/CAG 2012). The maximum building height allowed in the study a 163.2 feet, which is the lowest obstruction standard in the study area IV-14, 14 CFR Part 77 Airport Imaginary Surfaces North Side, of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the of San Francisco International Airport). Additionally, all futur subject to review for compatibility with the Comprehensive Airpo with CFR Part 77, developers proposing structures taller than the notification ele Exhibit IV-10 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan would be the FAA at least 30 days before the proposed start of constructi area that requires notification for buildings taller than 100 feet. that a significant safety hazard would not occur. There are no private area. Construction activities associated with development under the Sp emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construc that could impede emergency access on site. However, SFFMC Secti or obstructions without approval by the chief of police. Coordinati ensure that adequate emergency access is maintained during const The study area is currently urbanized. Intensified redevelopment the study area that would physically interfere with emergency re propose changes to the existing circulation system that would ma City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 5-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study Prevention Division to ensure proper emergency access to the dev The study area is highly developed, and no wildlands are intermi area is bordered on all sides by developed land. The closest wil Park, is located approximately 0.5 mile away. Therefore, there would be with regard to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.5Hydrology/Water Quality To comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA), San Mateo County and t County, including the City of South San Francisco, formed the Sa STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francis includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of polluta the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywi Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidel pollution. Construction activities would continue to be required permit for construction activities, pursuant to which BMPs would during construction, including silt fences, watering for dust co hydroseeding, and other measures. Compliance with existing regul under the Specific Plan would not violate any water quality stan l area along the southern boundary of the project area is adjacent to Colma Creek; however, Colma Creek do future development of the Specific Plan would not alter the cour waterway. Surface a system. The existing storm drainage system in the project area i urbanized development and takes into account the high ratio of i proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and The ratio of impervious surface area would be similar to existin runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. During cons controlled through required compliance with the NPDES general pe including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Redevelopment under the Specific Plan would require new drainage storm drain systems. Because no additional stormwater runoff wou stormwater would need to be accommodated in existing stormwater of stormwater drainage facilities would be warranted. The exact designs of the buildings that could be developed under unknown; as a result potential sources of pollutants cannot be q STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate propose to reduce stormwater pollution. Future development would be requ regulations pertaining to water quality. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 5-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 5.1 Effects Scoped out in the Initial Study nd Portions of the study area east of US-101, north of Amour Avenue, and south of 2 Lane are within the 100-year flood hazard area (California DWR 2013). No residences areUS-101; therefore, no impact would occur in this area. However, high-den nd accommodated within the 100-year flood hazard area north of Amou Lane. However, consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2-I-2, the City would ensure as part of the development review process that proposed development in the 100-year flood hazard flood protection. Further, because the study area is already dev within the 100-year flood hazard area would not result in the in undeveloped floodplain areas that would substantially impede or The study area is not located in a potential dam failure inundat gallon storage reservoir located on the top of San Bruno Hill po the study area. However, because the reservoir holds a relativel during seiching would be largely absorbed in the vegetated hills steep, the flow of water would not be rapid. Also, water would d ponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche inundat significant in the study area. The study area is not located in therefore, a significant impact related to tsunamis would not oc potential for inundation by mudflow is considered low because th slopes. Hillsides surrounding the study area are covered by deve onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfac causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there on the study area. Therefore, there would be a impact on hydrology and water quality as a result of implementation of the proposed project. 5.1.6Mineral Resources The study area is not known to have any mineral resources that m state, including as delineated on a local general plan, specific n.d.). on mineral resources would occur, and further analysis is not re 5.1.7Utilities/Service Systems particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapter recycling rates, development in the study area would not be subject to under the SSFMC, future development would be required to have it and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local waste and there would be . City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 5-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts 5.2GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS As required by the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a discus proposed project could directly or indirectly foster economic de construction of additional housing, and how that growth would, i environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Growth can be including the construction or new homes and business, elimination of obst the stimulation of economic activity within the region. In gener economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets The project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establish service, or the provision of new access to an area) The project results in the urbanization of land in a remote loca The project establishes a precedent-setting action (e.g., a chan amendment approval) Economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to th revenue base, employment expansion, etc.) If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be consider inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, o extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facili or unplanned growth. To comply with CEQA, an EIR must discuss the ways in which the p economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Under CEQA, this growth is not to be considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of significan considered a significant impact only if it affects (directly or needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the po significantly affects the environment. 5.2.1Economic and Population Growth Population Generation and Housing As proposed, implementation of the Specific Plan is intended to population growth forecasted for the City by introducing new res As proposed, implementation of the Specific Plan could result in units between 2014 and 2035 in the study area. Additionally, up office/research and development (R&D) uses could be added in the predominantly on the eastern side of the US-101, which could represent as many as 2,400 or more new jobs added to the City. The Specific Plan study area is currentl infrastructure is proposed as part of the proposed project. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 5-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts eral Plan Land Use Element, South San Francisco will accommodate population of approximately 67,832 at build-out in 2035, as the (South San Francisco 1999, Land Use Element). The 2010 Census estimated residents in the City, which is 6,178 residents fewer than the G to the Specific Plan, the study area had a population of approxi anticipates a larger rate of household and housing unit growth i County and the rest of the City by 2040 (BAE Urban Economics 201 substantial amount of growth by 2040 with an estimated three tims many jobs within the study area than in 2010 (BAE Urban Economic percent in 2010 to 12 percent by 2040 (BAE Urban Economics 2012). Implementation of the Specific Plan could result in an additiona area from 2010 to 2035. As such, the proposed project is growth- n the Downtown to increase the resident population and would provide significant additional housing over the life span densities located in the immediate proximity of to the extended population, particularly in the Downtown area. Utilizing an aver the Specific Plan could result in a population increase of 4,248 population of 67,880. The Specific Plan would not exceed the pop City as a result of higher-density residential areas within the study opportunities, which would attract new residents to the area. Ho of the City would relocate to the Specific Plan area and that all n Specific Plan would be new to the City. It also does not take in household factor for senior housing, which would be included in assume that at least a percentage of new occupants would be exis the difference of 48 residents, assuming full occupancy, represe population of the City at build-out of the General Plan, which would not be Therefore, the direct increase in population as a result of the significant impact. Compared to development under the General Plan, the Specific Pla new residential and employment uses within the study area. Howev zoning amendments would be adopted concurrent with the preparati General Plan and Zoning amendments, implementation of the Specif General Plan, where additional population growth due to the high would be accounted for in future population growth projections f employment rates would also be accounted for in the General Plan be consistent with all governing documents and policies regulati build-out estimated population of the amended General Plan. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 5-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 5.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Short-Term Employment Generation Development pursuant to the Specific Plan would generate some sh employment opportunities during construction activities. Given t workers in the regional work force of the Bay Area, which is the drawn, and the recent economic downturn resulting in additional not be considered growth-inducing from a short-term employment p Long-Term Employment Generation As noted, above, the proposed project could result in provision above, higher employment rates would also be accounted for in th average vacancy rate of 4 percent, and the proposed project woul the City would have ample housing stock to accommodate any new reside opportunities associated with the proposed project. Further, dev anticipated and encouraged by the General Plan to support TOD an an exceedance of current growth projections anticipated in the G activity can also be considered a benefit to the community by pr public transportation and housing. Removal of Obstacles to Population Growth The proposed Specific Plan would provide for infill development infrastructure. The study area is located in the center of a den Specific Plan would not include extension of the existing infras upgrades as needed. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would extension of infrastructure 5.3SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible changes that would be caused by the proposed project. Specifically, Se Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phase irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes re Primary impacts, and particularly, secondary impacts (such as hi access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit futur irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents asso commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such The construction and implementation of the proposed project woul and human resources. Manpower will also be committed for the con Ongoing operation of the proposed project would entail a further the form of petroleum products (diesel fuel and gasoline), natur would also result from an increase in vehicular traffic, and the emissions. This commitment of energy resources would be a long-t South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 5-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 5.4 Significant Unavoidable Environmental Impacts practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its developed. However, the project would include commercial, light which would require an unusual amount of energy resources. In su proposed project would involve the following irreversible enviro natural resources: Commitment of energy and water resources as a result of the cons maintenance of the proposed development 5.4SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts be avoided, even with implementation of feasible mitigation meas unavoidable adverse impacts would result from project implementa Air Quality >Implementation of the proposed project would violate an air qual substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Cultural Resources >Implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guideli Noise >Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substan ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existi Traffic/Transportation >Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with an appli policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performanc >Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greateto the freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on two nor one southbound segment of US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions f segment and two southbound segments, resulting in a significant pro Existing Plus Project Conditions. >Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with an applicable p policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performanc under cumulative plus project conditions. >Implementation of the Specific Plan would conflict with an appli policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performanc under Cumulative Plus Project conditions for two intersections. >Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greate freeway segment volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F on one northbo US-101 and would add traffic greater than 1 percent of the freeway sega City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 5-11 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 5.5 References segment already operating at LOS F under No Project Conditions o segments and five southbound segments of US-101 under cumulative conditions. >Implementation of the Station Area Plan would add traffic greate freeway ramp volume and deteriorate LOS from E to F for one southbounUS-101 ramp during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions. impacts. Significant impacts would remain as listed, above. 5.5REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2003. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for South San Francisco/Brisbane/San Bruno, October 20. BAE Urban Economics. 2012. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Affordable Housin Displacement Strategy, November 19. http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/storage/121119%20SSF %20AHAD%20Strategy%20draft.pdf (accessed November 18, 2013). California Department of Water Resources (California DWR). 2013. Viewer. http://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/ (accessed June 14, 2013). California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Su California (California EMA et al.). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, San Francisco South Quadrangle (San Francisco Bay). June 15. San Mateo, County of. n.d. San Mateo County General Plan Background Issues. Mineral Resources. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=360. . 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Report for El Camino Real/Chestnut Av General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, May. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. Paleontology in the San Fran http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfbay/paleo.html (accessed June 12, 2013). South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 5-12 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 6.1 Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives CHAPTER 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable a the project or to the location of the project that could feasibl while reducing significant project impacts. An EIR is not requir alternative to a project; rather, it must consider a range of po informed decision-making and public participation. In addition, merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this chapter sets forth p and evaluates them, as required by CEQA. Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternativ15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below: The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to th capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant e alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the p more costly. shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be foreseeable future if the project is not approved. must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reas be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any project. For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or su significant effects of the project need be considered for inclus An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be whose implementation is remote and speculative. 6.1RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives may include a different type of project, modifi alternative project sites. However, the range of alternatives 15126.6(f) defines as: be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the o could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the projec be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful publi making. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 6-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 6.1 Rationale for Selecting Potentially Feasible Alternatives Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1)) are environm economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consiste limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementa For purposes of this analysis, the project alternatives are eval attain the basic project objectives, while significantly lesseni discussed in the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan defines a visi for the revitalization of Downtown South San Francisco community Specific Plan presents a vision for the future transformation of Specific Plan will guide the City in its planning efforts to cre D. More specifically, the objectives, as stated in the Specific Plan, include the foll Revitalize Downtown South San Francisco to be a vibrant and succ and a source of local pride. Promote new residential, mixed-use and employment uses so as to patrons and residents to the Downtown, while maintaining a scale complementary. Focus new improvements on Grand Avenue to return the historic co community and encourage retention of existing and local business fabric Improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to Caltrain as well a employment area Community goals and priorities identified during the community o the following goals: Protect and celebrate the historic nature of Downtown Improve access to the Caltrain station Support local businesseskeep Downtown unique Improve east/west connectivity and access to Downtown Remove truck traffic from Downtown Reduce traffic congestion on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard Increase the use of alternative travel modes Specific Plan. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 6-2 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 6.2 Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible 6.2ALTERNATIVES REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), an EIR sh considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the r According to the CEQA Guidelines, the following factors may be u the scoping process, other alternatives were also considered, bu below. 6.2.1Alternative Site An alternative site for the proposed Specific Plan was rejected specifically to maximize transit-oriented development around the site in South San Francisco that would achieve this fundamental 6.3ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS DRAFT EIR The South San Francisco City Council will make the final determi alternatives and the extent to which the alternatives meet the p It should be noted that the No Project alternative that will be Foreseeable Development Alternative; that is, continuation of th control development in the study area. A No Project/No Build alt Plan and zoning. The alternatives include the following: Alternative 1: No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation o General Plan and Zoning)This legally mandated alternative, which is not subject to the requirement to meet most of the project objectives of the propos any of the significant effects of the project, reflects conditio without the adoption of the proposed plan. Rather, future land u guided by continued implementation of the Alternative 2: Mixed-Use Village Plan This alternative balances locational opportunities for new housing with additional sites for employment uses in the stu predominating in the Downtown, and a mix of residential and empl neighborhood. The following subsection describes the above alternatives, compa environmental effects of the alternatives, and evaluates the ext Plan objectives. The focus of the analysis is the difference bet alternative compared to those of the Specific Plan, with an emph identified significant impacts of the Specific Plan, and the ide alternatives. For each issue area, the analysis indicates which the alternatives and which significant and unavoidable impacts w reduced. Where appropriate, the analysis indicates whether any m City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 6-3 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project required, or whether additional mitigation measures would be req otherwise indicated, the level of significance and relative magn required mitigation measures, would be the same for the alternats as for the Specific Plan. 6.4ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.4.1Alternative 1: No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of General Plan and Zoning) Description Implementation of the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Developm the continuation of the existing City General Plan and zoning de development within the study area. Table 6-1 (Comparison of Specific Plan and Alternative 1 Land Uses) il under both plans for comparison. Table 6-1 Comparison of Specific Plan and Alternative 1 Land Uses Land Use Designation Specific Plan Alternative 1 Residential units 1,435 965 Business Commercial 511,780 sf 586,358 sf Commercial 268,800 sf 467,162 sf R&D 1,185,049 sf N/A Office N/A N/A Industrial 21,250 sf 21,250 sf Continuation of development per the General Plan would result in commercial/commercial, and less R&D use, with the same amount of Because existing zoning does not focus on transit-oriented devel Plan in the study area would result in less cohesive, transit-oriented development, less residential use, as well as potentially greater levels of development of business co R&D uses would be allowed. Because this alternative would not pr Plan, it would not help the City meet its RHNA allocation to the Plan, and because the City is completely built out, opportunitie the City are few. Because the overall level of development under under the Specific Plan for both residential and non-residential [sf] for the Specific Plan compared to 1.1 million sf under the cur of the Specific Plan would be reduced, but likely not to a less-th during construction, while reduced compared to the Specific Plan BAAQMD thresholds, since the Bay Area is in nonattainment for cr effects on historic and cultural resources would remain signific South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 6-4 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project although the amount of redevelopment under this alternative woul the study area could adversely affect historic and cultural reso noise levels would likely remain significant given the existing any additional development. Traffic impacts could be greater tha lower level of development, because the different mix of uses wo rates that could result in a larger increase in area traffic bec transit-oriented development. This would result in an increased emissions, as well as traffic noise, compared to the Specific Pl existing General Plan land use and zoning designations would gen Specific Plan, but not to a less-than-significant level. With regard to other resources where the Specific Plan would res impacts, with or without mitigation, General Plan policies that be applied. However, the design standards in the Specific Plan a planned TOD, which would result in more pedestrian-friendly, int Thus, continuation of the existing plan would likely result in g quality, as this Alternative would not provide the benefit of an development in the study area that takes advantage of its proxim noted that this alternative would include extension of the Caltr construction of a major undercrossing to provide access from Gra and East Grand in this neighborhood. Alternative 1 would result TOD focus), despite General Plan policies with regard to improvi consumption. While mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR w impacts, and would continue to be applied, these mitigations wou impacts to less than significant. Attainment of Project Objectives Alternative 1 would not meet most of the project objectives, as mix of uses as under the proposed plan. It would not: predominately low-intensity and fragmented development pattern i and pedestrian-oriented urban community containing distinct and districts with housing, office, retail, restaurants, personal se develop a mix and choices of use to enable residents and workers Downtown South San Francisco; develop land uses and densities th public investment in transit facilities, while reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions; develop housing in the Downtown area f households who choose to live in an active, urban environment; m jobs in the Downtown area, enabling residents to live close to w mix of land uses that responds to market conditions as they evol provide opportunities for the development of uses that complement one a local businesses to keep Downtown unique; improve east/west conn remove truck traffic from Downtown, reduce traffic congestion on City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 6-5 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Boulevard, increase the use of alternative travel modes establis floor uses and facades, streets, sidewalks, landscaping, lightin and the creation of safe and attractive pedestrian and bike rout some of the project objectives related to improving the aestheti community area, providing a symbolic and functional entry to the jobs, and improving roadway infrastructure. The proposed Specific Plan contains numerous and specific goals appearance and functionality of the Downtown area, and, importan development in a pattern that promotes walkability and bicycle u station. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a transit over and also includes new residential development, which use is nece oriented development. Alternative 1 would not achieve these goal community goals identified in the proposed plan. 6.4.2Alternative 2: Mixed-Use Village Plan Similar to the proposed plan, Alternative 2 proposes to maintain Grand, while allowing taller buildings on the rear portions of Gran the adjoining alleys: Tamarack Lane and Third Lane. Buildings di in height to 45 feet, with heights transitioning up moving away north and south, the Downtown Commercial Core would allow medium densi heights up to 60 feet. Allowed densities of development would be Plan, ranging as high as 40 dwelling units per acre. Grand Avenue a would become the pedestrian-oriented, higher intensity focus of the We Beyond this core area, in the Downtown North and South neighborhood residential densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre would be allowed. A transition zone would be located along the edge of the Sign Hill Neighborhood, with densi currently allowed. Along Airport Boulevard and north of Armour A designation would encourage higher density residential (up to 40 business commercial at up to 0.5 FAR. The Business Commercial designation currently applied to the zonUS-101, the rail tracks, and Airport Boulevard would remain. These sites are difficult to would not be suitable volume of vehicular and rail traffic. This alternative would offer a mix of office, residential and reta East Neighborhood of the study area and would maintain the zonin General Plan designations, which would result in very little cha It should be noted that this alternative would include extension south and construction of a major undercrossing to provide acces the station and East Grand in this neighborhood. Alternative 2 e mixed-use neighborhood, with high density residential and employment would allow only employment uses in this area. The Transit Core South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 6-6 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project designation would be applied here, with allowable residential de Office uses would be allowed at densities up to 3.5 FAR. This mi include a robust mix of jobs and housing, creating a transition east and the Downtown core commercial and residential uses west US-101. This alternative would include extension of the Caltrain station plat a major undercrossing to provide access from Grand Avenue to the w in this neighborhood. This would allow easy access for area resi services on Grand Avenue. As shown below in Table 6-2 (Comparison of Specific Plan and Alt alternative would not include R&D. Table 6-2 Comparison of Specific Plan and Alternative 2 Land Uses Land Use Designation Specific Plan Alternative 2 Residential units 1,435 1,382 Business Commercial 511,780 sf 537,828 sf Commercial 268,800 sf 444,725 sf R&D 1,185,049 sf N/A Office N/A 505,242 sf Industrial 21,250 sf 21,250 sf Alternative 2 would result in slightly fewer residential units, office development, and no R&D uses. Compared million sf of non-residential uses, Alternative 2 would result in 1.5 million sf of non-reside and design standards in the Specific Plan would be implemented wi Because this alternative would provide slightly less housing tha City meet its RHNA allocation to the same extent as the proposed completely built out, opportunities for residential development overall level of development under Alternative 2 would be less t residential uses (approximately 2 million sf for the Specific Plan com Alternative 2), many of the impacts of the Specific Plan would be reduced, significant level. Air quality emissions during construction, while would be anticipated to still exceed BAAQMD thresholds, since th criteria pollutants. While residential uses would be less than u distribution of uses, this alternative would expose a greater nu 101 area to TACs and higher noise levels due to proximity to US- risk of adverse effects on historic and cultural resources would well, because any development in the study area could adversely and this impact would be substantially similar to that of the Sp ambient noise levels would likely remain significant given the e without additional development. Traffic generated under this alt City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 6-7 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative the Specific Plan (51,980 daily trips versus 53,860 trips), whic gas emissions from motor vehicles. Alternative 2 would reduce th to a less-than-significant level; air quality and noise impacts woul uses adjacent to the US-101. With regard to other resources where the Specific Plan would res impacts, with or without mitigation, General Plan policies that be applied. The design standards articulated in the Specific Pla Alternative 2. Compared to the Specific Plan, Alternative 2 woul friendly, integrated mixed-use neighborhoods to the same extent as the S Downtown Core would remain as currently zoned, rather than becom neighborhood. Thus, implementation of Alternative 2 plan would l aesthetics and visual quality, as this Alternative would not provide to future development in the study area that takes advantage of Attainment of Project Objectives The proposed alternative would provide little to no change in th to support transit and local businesses. Therefore, this alterna objectives. 6.5ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 6-3 (Summary of Impacts of Alternatives) provides a side-by-side with the analyzed alternatives. Based on the information provide superior, as it would result in fewer significant and unavoidabl alternatives. The proposed Specific Plan is designed to optimize corridors and to maximize revitalization of the study area. Alte Alternative 2 would only achieve some, of the Specific Plan objectives. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 6-8 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 6.6 References Table 6-3 Summary of Impacts of Alternatives Alternative 1: Alternative 2: No Project/Continuation Impact Area Specific Plan Impacts Mixed-Use Village Plan of Existing General Plan Aesthetics LTS LTS > LTS > Air Quality SU SU> SU> Cultural Resources SU Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS PS> PS> Land Use/Planning LTS LTS> Noise SU SU> SU> Transportation/Traffic SU SU> SU< Utilities/Service Systems LTS LTS< LTS< Achieve Project Objectives? None Some Reduce SU Impacts of Project to LTS? No No LTS = less than significant; SU = significant and unavoidable; PS = potentially significant 6.6REFERENCES South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, October. http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360 (accessed November 19, 2013). South San Francisco, City of. 2013, June 19. City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Joint Study Session. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 6-9 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 6.6 References [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 6-10 Draft CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis October 2014 SECTION 7.1 Table of Report Preparers CHAPTER 7 Report Preparers 7.1TABLE OF REPORT PREPARERS This EIR was prepared by Atkins, under contract to the City of S this task was Fehr & Peers, subconsultant for traffic analysis; members. The following agencies and persons were directly involved in It is recognized that no one individual can be an expert in all this EIR. Consequently, an interdisciplinary team, consisting of areas, was required to prepare and complete this EIR. Table 7-1 preparers. Table 7-1 Report Preparers Name Role LA EAD GENCY City of South San Francisco Susy Kalkin Chief Planner, South San Francisco Department of Economic and Co Catherine Barber Senior Planner, South San Francisco Department of Economic and CDevelopment CT ONSULTANT EAM Atkins Kim Avila, AICP Project Director Alison Rondone Project Manager Dave Beauchamp Section Writer, Utilities/Services System (Water Supply) Sharon Toland Section Writer, Noise Kimberly Comacho Section Writer, Introduction, Project Description Tomoki Demers Section Writer, Utilities/Services System, Recreation, Alternati Heather Dubois Section Writer, Greenhouse Gas Emission Jennifer J. Lee Section Writer, Public Services Mar-Lynn Long Section Writer, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Land Use/Plannin Sharon Toland Section Writer, Air Quality Pete Vitar Noise Technical Support James Songco Graphics Joel Miller Administrative Coordination, Document Production Subconsultant: Fehr & Peers Megan Weir Traffic Analyses City of South San Francisco South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR Economic and Community Development Department SCH No. 2013102001 7-1 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis Draft October 2014 SECTION 7.1 Table of Report Preparers [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR City of South San Francisco SCH No. 2013102001 Economic and Community Development Department 7-2 Appendix A Notice of Preparation and NOP Comment Letters Notice of Preparation To: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties From: City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Compliance with Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Administrative Code. The City of South San Francisco (City) is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project identified below. The City has prepared an Initial Study and will prepare an EIR for the proposed project identified below: Project Title: The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Agencies: The City al information relevant to Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). Your agency will need to use the EIR when considering any permit or other approval that your agency must issue for the project. Organizations and Interested Parties: The City requests your comments regarding the environmental issues associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. Project Location: The South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Station Figure 1 Area Plan) study area is located in the Study Area geographic center of the City. The study area boundary includes the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the majority of commercial and civic development in the (Figure 1). A portion of the study area extends east of US 101, encompassing much of the East Side Neighborhood, but excludes the majority of the existing office development east of US 101 and the Gateway Neighborhood. The study area is generally bound by Hillside Boulevard and Linden Avenue to the north; Gateway Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue to the east; Railroad Avenue and Canal Street to the south; and Spruce Avenue and Maple Avenue to the west. Project Description: The project includes development and adoption of a Specific Plan, and associated General Plan amendments. The Station Area Plan will guide the City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse downtown as . The Station Area Plan will craft a vision for the Downtown core, and identify an implementation process to achieve City and community goals. The goals of the Station Area Plan include: protecting the historic nature of Downtown, improving access to the Caltrain station, supporting local businesses, improving east/west connectivity to Downtown, reducing traffic congestion on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, and increasing the use of alternative transportation. The Station Area Plan would support transit-oriented development (TOD); create an open space framework; create pedestrian linkages, alleys, and a pedestrian priority zone; create a new bicycle network; employ new parking strategies; and implement affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies. In addition, a new circulation framework would be implemented to balance travel modes to improve access between Downtown and the East Side neighborhood, improve street connectivity, reduce impacts from regional traffic, and provide transit enhancements from Downtown to BART and the South San Francisco ferry terminal. The Station Area Plan would feature an historic core, focused neighborhood and retail centers, an increase in residences within one quarter mile of the proposed future Caltrain station (maximum 120 dwelling units per acre), and high intensity office and Research and Development (R&D) uses in the East Side Neighborhood with a maximum allowable density of 3.5 floor area ratio. Increased dwelling units are anticipated to be constructed under the Station Area Plan, as well as a new area of office/R&D uses on the east side of the plan area. Potential Environmental Effects: An Initial Study has been prepared, and the City has determined that an EIR will be necessary to fully define certain impacts and their potential level of significance. Initial review indicates that there are potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. The City has determined that impacts to Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mineral Resources would be less than significant. The purpose of an EIR is to inform decision-makers and the general public of the environmental effects of a proposed project. The EIR process is intended to provide environmental information sufficient to evaluate the proposed project and its potential to cause significant effects on the environment; examine methods of reducing adverse environmental impacts; and identify alternatives to the proposed project. Scoping Meeting: The Lead Agency will conduct a scoping meeting on October 16, 2013, from 1:00 to 2:00 , in the PMPM Annex Conference Room, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, California, at which the public will have an opportunity to comment. The Lead Agency provides notice of the scoping meeting to all of the following: San Mateo County and cities adjacent to the project area; any responsible agency; any public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project; and any organization or individual who has filed a written request for the notice. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Initial Study is available for review at the following locations: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 South San Francisco Main Library 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 The Initial Study is also available online at the City of South San Francisco website for the Station Area Plan (http://www.ssfdowntownplan.org/). Agency/Public Comments: The City will accept written comments on this NOP between October 1, 2013 and October 30, 2013. Please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization and send your responses and comments to: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner Your comments may also be sent by FAX to 650.829.6639 or by email to gerry.beaudin@ssf.net (include South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan in the subject heading). EIR Process: Following the close of the NOP comment period, a Draft EIR will be prepared that will consider all NOP comments. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), the Draft EIR will be released for public review and comment for the required 45-day review period. Following the close of the 45-day public review period, the City will prepare a Final EIR that will include responses to all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in making the decision to certify the EIR and to approve or deny the Station Area Plan. STATE OF CALIFORNIAEDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 (213) 576-7083 October 24, 2013 Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Mr. Beaudin: Re: SCH 2013102001 South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan - NOP The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway- rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed City of South San Francisco (City) Downtown Station Area Plan project. The project area includes active railroad tracks. RCES recommends that the City add language to the General Plan so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of-way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns or destinations with respect to railroad ROW and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW. If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (213) 576-7076, ykc@cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Safety and Enforcement Division C: State Clearinghouse October 30, 2013 City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner Email: Gerry.beaudin@ssf.net Subject: South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Dear Mr. Beaudin: We, the South San Francisco Community Benefits Coalition, are submitting the following comments and questions to be considered in the development of the scope of the Environmental Impact for the City of South tion Area Plan (SAP). A. Project Description 1.We encourage the City to consider studying reasonable alternativ responsive to the housing needs in the downtown based on current projections. The Initial Study specifies that the SAP would accommodate a net increase of approximately 1,400 dwelling units. Feedback at the Community Workshop held the evening of September 17, 2013 suggested that the public in attendance strongly support of increased downtown densification [beyond 1,400] so long as the heights on Grand Avenue were stepped and zoning allow for up to 4,000 new residential units and initially estimated about 1,500 units to be included in the plan. Data prepared by Bay Area Economics highlighted that current demographic data of downtown area households represent the dire need for affordable housing 1 production and preservation in the plan area and citywide. It is incumbent upon the City for its environmental analysis to respond adequately to this need. Alternatives assessed should consider analyze up to the maximum allowable units. 2.ART and Is this in the form of shuttling system? Can alternatives assessed incorporate a Transportation Management Association and proactive transportation demand management measures as is increasingly common in other Peninsula communities with transit access? 1 Bay Area Economics, November 19, 2012. South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Plan Affordable Housing and Anti-Displacement Strategy. p.19. Link: households are overcrowded and over 1,300 Plan Area households h 1 B. Job Indicators and Economic Opportunity 1.The EIR is an opportunity to highlight the positive economic impacts of developing the Downtown Area of South San Francisco. We would like you to consider adding job indicators (e.g. number of jobs created per dollar invested) and clear labor standards as mitigations to the negative impacts of the development of the SAP. Some mitigation measures could be to use Area Standard Wages and require local apprentices who are enrolled in a State of California Approved Apprenticeship Programs to be part of the construction team. a.Alternatives Analysis: The EIR should include alternatives that evaluate the impact of the plan on local businesses. It should examine the potential displacement of small businesses that are the lifeblood of the local community. Potential mitigation measures for this adverse effect should be strategies for small business retention and the banning of big box stores in the plan area. C. Population and Housing 1.We encourage the City to consider mitigations for displaced residents. -than- potential to: a. b. However, without decisive anti-displacement policies or assurance of affordability in new residential units of the downtown, current residents in the downtown plan area are almost guaranteed potential displacement--priced out of the area due to rises in real estate value and speculation in the downtown. The current factors listed above (a and b) focus on the displacement of units rather than people. While new units may be constructed to replace any demolished housing or displaced residents, such new construction does not necessarily benefit the actual residents that may experience the displacement. The plan and study thereof should consider the reality of this phenomenon and offer mitigations accordingly. 2.Affordability levels a.The EIR should examine alternatives that evaluate different levels of affordable housing (15%, 20%, 25%). 3.Since the station area is designated by the Metropolitan Transpo Commission as a Community of Concern, the EIR should consider how the following affordability indicators fall on low-income households when compared to all other downtown households. a.Housing affordability: Percentage of income spent on housing plus transportation. b.Potential risk of displacement: Percentage of rent-burdened households. 2 D. Recreation 1.The EIR for the SAP should study alternatives that offer a range regional parks or other recreational facilities, including alternatives that increase the amount of green space and recreational facilities in the draft p There is currently zero acres of true open/green space in the downtown plan area. While there are plans to reconfigure the landscaping around City Hall and to create pedestrian plazas at a few sites in the SAP, there remains a dearth of recreational facilities in the downtown. Given at least a doubling of residential units in the plan, the EIR should take seriously such lack. The plan should correspondingly pursue a range of policies to mitigate for the expected need including innovative strategies as mandating the construction of rooftop gardens/open space; conversion of surface parking lots to parks; and transfer development rights that allow for higher density if the developer builds a park/green space. Anecdotal evidence from residents suggests there to already be a need for playgrounds and designated public spaces with full amenities (e.g. public restrooms). E. Transportation/Traffic 1.The EIR should make specific strides to focus less on traffic congestion a of service (LOS) as the focus of CEQA transportation analysis gi Senate Bill 743. While the new methodology for this category of analysis will be developed by the Office of Planning and Research over the next year, the Downtown SAP is intended to guide development over the next 20 years. As such the plan and environmental analysis thereof must be of greenhouse gas emissions, the 2 2.Metrics: Reduction of VMT, GHG, modal split, increase transit ri F. Human Impact 1. The EIR should examine the real human impact of displacement men (Comment B.1). Across the Bay Area, the phenomenon of economic displacement, where low- income residents are displaced from their neighborhoods by escalating rents and property values is a known and real impact of development. Those that are transit dependent often choose to live in the downtown for its proximity and access to transit stations--and yet are the most vulnerable to displacement from transit-oriented displacement. G. Public Scoping Process 1.Alternatives Analysis: We ask that the alternatives studied be specifically responsive to the ve raised regarding housing, transportation, and labor standards. We encourage that the EIR analysis includes the affordability and displacement, and job indicators listed above, and prioritizes assessment of non-motorized connectivity to transit. Thank you for taking the time to review these comments and respond to our questions. We look forward to your response to our questions and eagerly await the release of the draft plan and EIR. 2 California Senate Bill No. 743, Chapter 386. Link: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743 3 Sincerely, Mark Leach, President International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 617 Adina Levin Friends of Caltrain Michele Beasley, Regional Director, South Bay Greenbelt Alliance Joshua Hugg, Program Manager Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Bill Nack, Business Manager San Mateo County Building Trades Council Belen Seara, Director of Community Relations San Mateo County Union Community Alliance Corinne Winter, President and Executive Director Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Victor Torreano, Business Representative Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 Danny Campbell, Business Development Representative Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 Clarrissa Cabansagan, Community Planner TransForm Richard Hedges and Ellouise Patten United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5 4 Appendix B Air Quality Data 6 BidentoLinden2012PM.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Baden_Linden_2012PM RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 262 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 302 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 426 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 349 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.6 * .0 .0 .0 .1 4. Recpt 4 * 1.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 7 GrandGatewayExP.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: East Grand/Gateway RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 437 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 440 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 722 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 1387 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.6 * .0 .1 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.9 * .0 .0 .0 .4 4. Recpt 4 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 8 GrandLindenExP.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Grand/Linden Ex+P PM RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 290 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 321 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 106 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 689 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.7 * .0 .0 .0 .2 4. Recpt 4 * 1.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 9 GrandAirportExP.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Grand/Airport Ex+P PM RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 1098 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 291 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 682 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 850 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.5 * .1 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.6 * .2 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.8 * .2 .0 .0 .3 4. Recpt 4 * 1.5 * .1 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 10 BidenLindenExP.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Baden/Linden Ex+P PM RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 323 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 326 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 432 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 390 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.6 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.6 * .0 .0 .0 .1 4. Recpt 4 * 1.4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 11 SanMateoAirportExP.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: San Mateo/Airport Ex+P PM RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 876 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 988 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 863 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 414 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.5 * .1 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.8 * .1 .3 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.7 * .1 .0 .0 .1 4. Recpt 4 * 1.5 * .1 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 12 AirportGatewayExP.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: Airport Blvd/Gateway Ex+P PM RUN: Hour 1 POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S Z0= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= .0 DEGREES VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 4 (D) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 1.4 PPM SIGTH= 5. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Link A * 0 150 0 0 * AG 562 5.7 .0 9.8 B. Link B * 0 0 150 0 * AG 130 5.7 .0 9.8 C. Link C * 0 0 0 -150 * AG 1318 5.7 .0 9.8 D. Link D * -150 0 0 0 * AG 1098 5.7 .0 9.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 9 9 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 9 -9 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * -9 -9 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * -9 9 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.) * PRED * CONC/LINK * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A B C D -------------*-------*-------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1.8 * .0 .0 .0 .3 4. Recpt 4 * 1.5 * .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 1 Appendix C Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data AssumptionsandCalculations SSFSpecificPlanEIR EmissionsSummary Existing COCHNOCOe 2422 Area78.930.060.0080.85 Electricity10467.3420.47330.097910507.6381 NaturalGas7,996.420.150.158,045.09 Transportation35,440.111.730.0035,476.53 Waste2,348.26138.780.005,262.61 Water866.8211.020.271,180.96 total60,553.68 Atkins 2014 taken from the CalEEMod Model. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be Note: 422 and NO). multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH 42 The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. Construction CHNOCOe CO 2422 Annual720.430.090.00722.30 1 FullDevelopment14,408.691.780.0014,445.99 Atkins 2014 taken from the CalEEMod Model. n orero conver anoee emssons o eac neeoe IdttCHdNOtCOthiifhdtb Note: IdttCHdNOtCOthiifhdtb 422 and NO). multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH 42 The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. 1. Construction emissions were analyzed assuming the same level of construction over 20 years. Approximately one year was analyzed in CalEEMod. Therefore total emissiosn over the full development is the annual emissions times 20. NewGrowth(UNREDUCED) COCHNOCOe 2422 Area78.860.060.0081 Electricity4,791.870.220.044,810 NaturalGas6,875.010.130.136,917 Transportation21,756.360.570.0021,768 Waste2,002.59117.350.004,488 Water175.651.250.10232 total38,296 perSP5.02 Atkins 2014 taken from the CalEEMod Model. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be Note: 422 multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH and NO). 42 The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. SSFSpecificPlanEIR EmissionsSummary NewGrowth(ProjectDesignandStateReductionRequirements) COCHNOCOe 2422 Area78.860.060.0081 Electricity4,791.870.220.044,810 NaturalGas6,875.010.130.136,917 Transportation15,610.980.410.0015,620 Waste500.6529.590.001,122 Water141.601.000.08186 total28,736 perSP3.77 Atkins 2014 taken from the CalEEMod Model. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be Note: 422 multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH and NO). 42 The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. NewGrowth(ProjectDesignplusmitigationCalEEMod) COCHNOCOe 2422 Area63.800.020.0164 Electricity3,570.720.160.033,584 NaturalGas5,108.370.100.095,139 Transportation14,860.930.390.0014,869 Waste500.6529.590.001,122 Water127.800.870.07166 total24,946 perSP3.27 Atkins 2014 taken from the CalEEMod Model. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be Note: 422 multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH and NO). 42 The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. SSFSpecificPlanEIR EmissionsSummary NewGrowth(AdditionalCalculatedMitigation) COCHNOCOe 2422 Area63.800.020.0164 Electricity3,570.720.160.033,584 NaturalGas5,108.370.100.095,139 Transportation13,386.180.350.0013,394 Waste500.6529.590.001,122 Water127.800.870.07166 total23,470 perSP3.079 Atkins 2014 taken from the CalEEMod Model. In order to convert CH and NO to COe the emissions of each need to be Note: 422 and NO). multiplied by their global warming potential (21 and 310 respectively for CH 42 The conversion is not shown in the table and therefore the rows will not add across. Transportation Unreduced21,768.27 Project&State15,619.530.282463 Mitigation13,393.540.3847220.1425134 SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures ThefollowingoutlinestheimplementationoftheDraftSouthSanFranciscoCAPmeasuresintothe SpecificPlanEIR.Withinthisdiscussionthefollowingdesignationsapply: S#=StateReductionMeasure E#=ExistingCityMeasures P#=ClimateActionPlanMeasures (CalEEMod)=meansthereductionswereaccountedforintheCalEEModmodeling. (NotApplicable)=meansthemeasuresinnotapplicabletotheSpecificPlan. (NotQuantified)=meansthemeasuresupportsothermeasuresintheplanandreductionsarenot StateMeasures CaliforniaRenewablePortfolioStandard S1(CalEEMod) 33%ofelectricitydeliveredinCaliforniamustbegeneratedbyrenewablesourcesby2020. IntensityFactorsreducedinCalEEModtoaccountfortheuseofrenewables.CalEEModuses 1 In2011PG&Erenewableenergysourceswereat:19.04% By2020PG&Ewouldbeat33%33% Needtoincreaserenewablesby:13.96% IntensityFactors(lbs/MWh) CO2CH4N2O 2 2008641.350.0290.006 3 20113930.0177703280.00367662 4 20193070.0138816560.00287207 1 CaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommission.CaliforniaRenewablesPortfolioStandard(RPS).Accessed 2/7/2014from: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/ 2 CalEEModdefaults 3 PG&E.GreenhouseGasEmissionFactors:GuidanceforPG&ECustomers.April2013 http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calcula nfo_sheet.pdf 4 IntensityfactorsrepresenttheemissionfactoranticipatedbyPG&Efor2019basedonthereductions neededforPG&EtomeetitsshareoftheAB322020goals. S2AB1493(Pavley)VehicleStandards(CalEEMod) ReductionisimbeddedintheCalEEModmodel,noadditionalreductionsavailable. S3ExecutiveOrderS0107,LowCarbonFuelStandard(CalEEMod) ReductionisimbeddedintheCalEEModmodel,noadditionalreductionsavailable. S4Title24,EnergyEfficiencystandards:(CalEEMod) aousesesanarsasasenerequremen.nuneenexeveo ClEEMd2008Titl24tddbliitIJ2014thtllf Title24efficiencyrequirementswillbeapplicabletotheproject.Thesenewrequirementsare 15%morestrictthanthe2008Standards.Therefore,EnergyEfficiencymitigationissetata minimumof15%beyondTitle24toaccountfortheincreaseinenergyefficiencyrequirements goingintoeffectin2014. SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures ExistingCityMeasures E1AircraftNoiseInsulationProgram(ANIP)(NotApplicable) Retrofitprogramwhereallfundshavebeenallocated.Programisclosing. and Inaddition,theproposedprojectisoutsidethe65dBnoiseconturelinefortheairport thereforethereductionwouldnothavebeenapplicable. E2Recyclewastefromconstructinanddemolitionprojects.(NotQuantified) GHGemissionsfromconstructionanddemolitionwasteisnotcalculatedaspartofthestandard emissionsinventoryforconstructionGHGemissions.Therefore,reductionsfromrecyclingthis E3ParticipateintheCaliforniaSolarInitiative(CSI).(NotApplicable) ThismeasuresaccountsfortheexistingsolararraysinstalledinSouthSanFranciscoandisnot applicabletonewdevelopmentundertheSpecificPlan.Measure4.1accountsformeasures fromrenewableinstallationfornewfacilities. E4Retrofitmunicipalfacilitiesforenergyefficiency.(NotApplicable) Themeasuredealswithretrofittingexistingfacilitiesandnotreductionsfromgrowth.Therefore itisnotapplicabletotheSpecificPlanGHGanalysis. E5CommunityTransportationPlan(NotQuantified) DeveopmentoacommunityasetransportationpantoreuceGHGemissionswicincues lfbdldhhld increasedaccesstotransitstops,improvingconnectivitybetweentransitmodes,andwaysto maketransitmoreaffordable.TheprimaryfocusinontheeasternportionofSouthSan Francisco,includingtheSpecificPlanArea. E6(NotApplicable) SouthSanFranciscoUnifiedSchoolDistrictChevronEnergySolutionsPartnershipSolarProject ImplementationofasolarenergyprogramforK12schools.NotapplicabeltotheSpecificPlan's newgrowth. E7TransportationDemandManagement(NotApplicable) ThismeasureaccountsforthereductionassociatedwithTDMimplementedforexistingfacilities isnotapplicablefornewgrowthunderthesSpecificPlan.TDMmeasuresfornewgrowthare and addressedundermeasureP1.2. E8Expansionfomultifamilydevelopment.(NotQuantified) ThismeasurewasinstitutedtofostermultifamilydevelopmentwithintheCityasameansto reduceCommunityWideemissionsoverwhatisprojectedfromsinglefamilyhomes.Whilethe oftheSpecificPlanwillsupportthisCitywidemeasure,therearenodirect implementation reductionstotheSpecificPlanassociatedwiththismeasure. SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures ClimateActionPlanSpecificMeasures Expandactivetransportationalternativesbyprovidinginfrastructureandenahncing P1.1(CalEEMod) connictivityforbicycleandpedestrianaccess. Thismeasureisaccountedforbytheprojectspecifictrafficstudythroughthereductionintrip ratesfromthestandardITErates. P1.2Supportexpansionofpublicandprivatetransitprogramstoreduceemployeecommutes.(Calculated) TheexpansionofTDMwasestimatedtoaffect25to44%ofalllocalemploymentby2035. TheSouthSanFranciscoTDMOrdinancerequiresthatallnonresidentialdevelopmentsthat produce100averagevehicltripsperdayormoretomeeta35%nondrivealonepeakhour requirementwithfeesassessedfornoncompliance. AssumptionsbasedonP1.2backupdataandCAPCOAmeasrueTRT1. %CommuteVMTreduction=A*B %CommuteVMTreduction=0.1*0.39 %CommuteVMTreduction=3.90% where: 10.00% A=%reductioninVMT=%basedonitsurbanlocation= 39%(mostconservativereduction) B=%employeeseligible= reductioncalculations: CO 2 employment3304areaemployment Averagecommute24.8miles(roundtripperday) Totalaveragecommute81,939miles(roundtrip/day) TotalAnnualcommute21,386,131miles Annualcommutereduction834,059miles TotalProjectAnnualVMT:40,067,294miles TotalVMTReduction:2.08% TotalVehicleEmissionsReductions: CO2CH4N2OCO2e Unreduced14,860.930.390.0014,869.09 Reduced14,551.580.380.0014,559.57 Difference309.350.010.00309.52 Integratehigherdensitydevelopmentandmixedusedevelopmentneartransitfacilitiesand P1.3(CalEEMod) smartparkingpolicies. communityfacilities,andreducedependenceonautosthrough IncreaseindensityisincludedintheProjectSpecifictripratesidentifiedinthetrafficstudy. SmartParkingpoliciescallfora10%reductioninparkingtoreduceVMT. SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures P2.1Expandtheuseofalternativefuelvehicles(calculated) Measureassumes: 150publicEVchargingstations(notappicabletotheSpecificPlan) 2,650houseswithEVchargers 180EVchargersatbusinesses ksqftTotal NonresDUReduction 1 TotalPlan12,29321,140 2 Chargers1802,650 chargerspersf0.014642003 %development12.54% TotalSpecificPlan1,9871,435 #Participating60200 2 gallonsoffuel(perstation)390390 annualreductioninfuel23,40078,000 2 COe/gallon0.00560.0056 2 Totalreduction(transCOe)131.48438.26569.73 2 1 TotalsquarefootagetakenfromSFGeneralPlan,HousingtakenfromPop/Housingsection ZeroEmissionVehicles: Assumes4.50%allvehiclesarezeroemissionvehiclesby2032 4.50%reductionfromallnonresidentialandallnoncommuteresidentialvehicletrips. CommuteRemaining TotalTrips%CommuteTripsTrips Residential16,207,60312.40%2,009,74314,197,860 NonResidential21,856,3260021,856,326 Total38,063,92936,054,186 #ReducedTrips1,622,438 Reduction4.26% P2.2Reduceemissionsfromoffroadvehiclesandequipment(CalEEMod) Aconservativeassumptionthat25%ofalllawnmowersandleafblowersacquired/usedwithin theSpecificPlanareawouldbeelectric. Maximizeenergyefficiencyinthebuiltenvironmentthroughstandardsandtheplanreview P3.1(CalEEMod) process. anassumesaportonoteneweveopmentcompywitCALGreenaseanTier1 P lfhdllhbd standards.TheCALGreenbasestandardforenergyefficiencyiscompliancewith2008Title24 energyefficiencystandards.Tier1isanenergyefficiency15%beyondthe2008basestandard, whichisequivalenttothestandardcomingoutin2014. minimumcomplientwiththeCALGreenTier1 Theanalysisassumesallnewbuildingswillbeata standard. www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures P3.2Supportretrofitstoexistingresidentialstructures.(NotApplicable) NotapplicabletonewdevelopmentundertheSpecificPlan Encourageenergyefficiencyretrofitstotheexistingnonresidentialbuildingstockthatreduce P3.3(NotApplicable) operatingcostsandincreaseindustrycompetitiveness. NotapplicabletonewdevelopmentundertheSpecificPlan P3.4Addressheatislandissuesandexpandtheurbanforest(CalEEMod) SqftTotal NonresDUReductions 1 TotalPlan12,293,40021,140 NewLUParticipation30880 TotalSpecificPlan1,986,8791,435 %ofTotalPlan16.16%6.79% PlanLandUseParticipation560 kWhperlanduse1,96012 Totalreduction(kWh)9,503.35716.8210,220.17 1 TotalsquarefootagetakenfromSFGeneralPlan,HousingtakenfromPop/Housingsection Promoteenergyinformationsharingandeducatethecommunityaboutenergyefficient P3.5(CalEEMod) behaviorsandconstruction Thismeasuresassumes100kWhand10thermsreductionperparticipatingresidenceforthe behavioralenergyreductionefforts.TheCAPassumedthat23%ofresidenceswouldparticipate. TotalSpecificPlan1,435residences Participating330residences Reduction/residence(kWh)100 Reduction/residence(therms)10 TotalReduction(kWh)33,005 Reduction(Therms)3,301 Reduction(KBTUs)330,050 Reduction(KBTU/DU)230.00 SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures P4.1EnergyReduction(CalEEMod) 180kWhpersquarefootofnonresidentialroofspaceconvertedtosolarpanels 5,190kWhperhousewithasolarpannelarray 90thermsperhousewithasolarhotwaterheater DU(for SqftDU(for waterTotal Nonresarrays)heater)Reduction 1 12,293,40021,14021,140 TotalPlan Reduced2157008802410 %Participation1.75%4.16%11.40% TotalSpecificPlan1,986,8791,7941,794 #Participating34,86275205 Reduction(kWh)6,275,120387,5856,662,706 Reduction(Therms)18,406.7518,406.75 Reduction(KBTUs)1,840,675 Reduction(KBTU/DU)1,026 1 TotalsquarefootagetakenfromSFGeneralPlan,HousingtakenfromPop/Housingsection 1Therm=100,000BTU 1Therm=100kBTU P4.2Reducethecostofalternativeenergyinstallations.(NotQuantified) NotapplicabletothenewgrowthundertheSpecificPlan P4.3SupportGreenIndustries(NotQuantified) enhancetheachievementsofotherreduction Thisrepresentsasupportivemeasuresthatwill measures.TherearenoreductionsapplicabletothenewdevelopmentundertheSpecificPlan. Developawastereductionstrategytoincreaserecyclingandreuseofmaterialstoachievea P5.1(CalEEMod) 75%diversionoflandfilledwasteby2020. TheStatehasmandatedthesamereductiongoals.Thismeasurereducesemissionsfromwaste decompositionby75% P5.2Reducelandfillemissions.(NotApplicable) measuresupportsthecaptureandreuseoffugitivelandfillgasemissions.Thisisnot This applicabletoreducingGHGemissionsfromCitygrowth. P6.1WaterReduction(CalEEMod) Thismeasureanticipatesareductionofupto40gallonspercapitaperdayby2035and incorporatestheCALGreenreductionrequirements. 40gallonreductionpercapitaperday 172,760reducedgallonsperday 63,057,400reducedgallonsperyear 204,400,000Projectestimatedtotalgallons/year 141,342,600Reducedprojecttotalgallons/year 30.85%%reduction SSFSpecificPlanEIR DCAPReductionMeasures P6.2Providealternativewaterresourcesforirrigation.(NotQuantified) measurelookstocreatewaterpoliciestomanagestormwaterandfurtherreducepotent This waterconsumption.Thisisasupportivemeasureanditsdirectseffectsarenotquantified. P7.1Promoteenergyefficiencypoliciesatmunicipalfacilities.(NotApplicable) Thismeasuresisimplementedwithrespecttomunicipaldevelopmentandthereforeisnot applicabletothenewcommunitygrowthundertheSepcificPlan. P7.2Conservemunicipalwater.(NotApplicable) Thismeasuresisimplementedwithrespecttomunicipaldevelopmentandthereforeisnot applicabletothenewcommunitygrowthundertheSepcificPlan. P7.3Reducemunicipalwaste.(NotApplicable) Thismeasuresisimplementedwithrespecttomunicipaldevelopmentandthereforeisnot applicabletothenewcommunitygrowthundertheSepcificPlan. P7.4EstablishbudgetingandadministrativepracticesthatsupporttheCAP.(NotApplicable) Thismeasuresisimplementedwithrespecttomunicipaldevelopmentandthereforeisnot applicabletothenewcommunitygrowthundertheSepcificPlan. SSFSpecificPlanEIR AdditionalReductions Transportation COCHNOCOe 2422 FromCalEEMod:14,860.930.390.0014,869.09 P1.2 309.350.010.00309.52 P2.1 569.420.010.00569.73 P2.1 595.980.020.00596.30 Reduced13,386.180.350.0013,393.54 ExistingCalEEModOutput ConstructionCalEEModOutput StationAreaPlanGrowthCalEEModOutput Appendix D Noise Data TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS Project Number: 27545 Project Name: SSF Specific Plan EIR Background Information Model Description:FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes:Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, December 2008 Community Noise Descriptor:L:CNEL:X dn "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution:DayEveningNightDistance is from the centerline of the roadway segment Total ADT Volumes77.70%12.70%9.60%to the receptor location. Medium-Duty Trucks87.43%5.05%7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks89.10%2.84%8.06% Distance from Centerline of Roadway DesignVehicle Mix Analysis ConditionCNEL at MedianADT AlphaMediumHeavyDistance to Contour 50 Feet Roadway, SegmentLanesWidthVolume(mph)FactorTrucksTrucks70 CNEL65 CNEL60 CNEL55 CNEL Miller Avenue Between Airport Blvd and Linden Avenue 59.4 Existing206,440250.52.0%1.0%--4699 61.1 Existing Plus Project (KWBL & RWBL)209,420250.52.0%1.0%--59127 E. Grand Avenue between the I-101 and Dubuque Ave 68.5 Existing42020,890350.53.0%1.0%-86184397 69.9 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)42029,000350.53.0%1.0%-107230495 68.8 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)42022,480350.53.0%1.0%-90194417 Baden Avenue between Airport Blvd. and Linden Ave. 62.9 Existing2014,410250.52.0%1.0%-3678169 64.2 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)2019,420250.52.0%1.0%-4496206 64.2 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)2019,340250.52.0%1.0%-4495206 South Airport Boulevard between Airport Blvd./Produce Ave. and Gateway Blvd. 67.6 Existing4020,030300.52.0%2.0%-75162348 69.9 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)4033,600300.52.0%2.0%49106228492 70.7 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)4040,120300.52.0%2.0%55119257553 Linden Avenue between Grande Ave. and Baden Ave. 60.8 Existing208,920250.52.0%1.0%--57123 61.2 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)209,670250.52.0%1.0%--60130 61.8 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)2010,990250.52.0%1.0%--65141 Airport Boulevard North of Baden. 69.2 Existing6013,950350.55.0%3.0%-95205441 69.2 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)6013,950350.55.0%3.0%-95205441 70.1 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)6017,150350.55.0%3.0%-109235506 Airport Boulevard between Baden ave. and San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. 71.1 Existing6021,660350.55.0%3.0%59127275591 72.0 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)6026,560350.55.0%3.0%68146314678 70.4 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)6018,410350.55.0%3.0%-114246531 Gateway Boulevard between E. Grand Ave. and So. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave. 66.8 Existing41213,510350.52.0%2.0%-66141304 68.5 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)41220,240350.52.0%2.0%-86185399 69.7 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)41226,760350.52.0%2.0%-103223480 Industrial Way South of Grand Ave. 59.5 Existing206,520250.52.0%1.0%--46100 60.6 Existing Plus Project (KWBL & RWBL)208,380250.52.0%1.0%--55118 Produce Avenue south of San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. 68.8 Existing3025,020350.52.0%2.0%4189193415 69.8 Existing Plus Project (KWBL)3031,600350.52.0%2.0%48104225485 69.6 Existing Plus Project (RWBL)3029,970350.52.0%2.0%47101217468 101 Freeway 87.5 380 Junction to Produce820220,000650.53.6%1.3%8761,8874,0648,757 87.3 Produce to Grand820212,000650.53.6%1.3%8541,8413,9658,543 87.4 Grand to Oyster Point820218,000650.53.6%1.3%8701,8754,0408,703 Traffic Noise Worksheet - SSF.xlsAtkins6/30/2014 Appendix E Traffic Data Appendix A Traffic Counts South San Francisco Caltrain Station Area Plan EIR April 2014 SF12-0610 MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: linden-miller-a2 Site Code: 1 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only LINDEN AVEMILLER AVELINDEN AVEMILLER AVE SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:0053213812715432111141111426121 07:1564525352615460151161616638153 07:30438345432225801811917131040162 07:45744253648237751983220211657219 Total22159818916133752247631181646136161655 08:00124335833919615363441829754217 08:15103604633527652327411417940192 08:3045035703423574315401620945199 08:455491554332966328536148325182 Total31178721610141982491412720161627428164790 Grand Total5333715405262741734732119031242126135643251445 Apprch %13.183.23.75.557.936.68.778.512.838.841.519.7 Total %3.723.31281.8191232.71.513.12.116.78.79.34.422.5 LINDEN AVEMILLER AVELINDEN AVEMILLER AVE SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45744253 6487758201657219 23193221 12358364429 08:004333919615318754217 27 08:151036046335652327411417940192 50 08:30435703423574315401620945199 Total Volume33173821412156922601611823157688741196827 % App. Total15.480.83.74.66035.410.275.214.634.744.420.9 PHF.688.865.667.922.500.813.852.844.800.819.719.892.850.750.641.860.944 LINDEN AVE OutInTotal 171214385 331738 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 2311816 333157490 OutInTotal LINDEN AVE MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: linden-miller-p2 Site Code: 1 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only LINDEN AVEMILLER AVELINDEN AVEMILLER AVE SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:0094756114642210064665820161248267 16:1510473604713110632943612101739241 16:30857368762411102446522791248278 16:4510572691181301223459572116744292 Total37208132583627812443814164252038051481791078 17:0010521639872612214955523111650290 17:15125737278424115103865422131550291 17:30952364978331203426512211942277 17:4573814612741710311427601491437246 Total3819982453732310046025171242208144541791104 Grand Total7540721503736012248983933549423161951023582182 Apprch %14.980.94.28.166.924.99.279.211.64526.528.5 Total %3.418.7123.13.327.510.341.21.815.42.219.47.44.44.716.4 LINDEN AVEMILLER AVELINDEN AVEMILLER AVE SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30 16:308 5734127 6876211024465291248278 1112295716292 16:451057269813034521744 87491650 17:00105216392612215552311290 127210 17:15573784241153865422131550291 Total Volume4022392723431412146916176262189349501921151 % App. Total14.7823.37.26725.87.380.711.948.425.526 PHF.833.978.750.944.773.902.738.961.400.898.722.956.861.766.781.960.985 LINDEN AVE OutInTotal 260272532 402239 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 16:30 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 2617616 437218655 OutInTotal LINDEN AVE PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #015AirportBlvd&MillerAveUS101SBOnOffRamp 015080198730 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Airport BlvdThursday, May 22, 20081145 AM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: Miller Ave-US-101 SB On-Off RampS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA500 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 020 LN 523940 491 AM 482630 223 MD 422720 153 PM 1429290 115 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 94541210 440291214 5832861701271 NORTH 9862443394030 Miller Ave-US-101 SB On-Off Ramp SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Miller Ave-US-101 SB On-Off Ramp LNAMMDPMTOTAL 00000 SOUTH 000000000 110813389330 AMMDPMTOTAL 2204870 TOTAL 1122220 905 PM 731510 735 MD 351140 605 AM 224505.15.0 LN 2245 LN 05150 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: spruce-miller-a Site Code: 5 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only SPRUCE AVMILLER AVSPRUCE AVMILLER AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:001122150961511411661832773 07:153153215921610511632363285 07:3042022622213371212529636143135 07:45102063628122214147352839875168 Total186713989483390473514964311618177461 08:002140164151534182111501330447147 08:1531912362111381519236821332129 08:30416222522936920231336140129 08:452103155146251320134617831105 Total11596762072411335580161513010416150510 Grand Total29126191742912074223102115302477322034327971 Apprch %16.772.410.91353.833.241.346.612.122.367.310.4 Total %313217.9312.47.62310.511.83.125.47.522.73.533.7 SPRUCE AVMILLER AVSPRUCE AVMILLER AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 07:304 2022 226213371212529636143135 106362839875168 07:45202812221414735 1518211150 08:00214016415341330447147 638 08:1531912321111519236821332129 Total Volume197391011466511315966251505512616197579 % App. Total18.872.38.910.750.438.939.34416.727.9648.1 PHF.475.913.375.701.583.750.850.862.819.786.568.750.491.808.500.657.862 SPRUCE AV OutInTotal 96101197 19739 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 256659 179150329 OutInTotal SPRUCE AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: spruce-miller-p Site Code: 5 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only SPRUCE AVMILLER AVSPRUCE AVMILLER AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:0041411923717561338455913628158 16:15102713874829841426545525232199 16:3051722453726681234551416727170 16:4551722474723771638155931444200 Total2475610521169952855513615206278519131727 17:008191289732710915374561225643236 17:1562713457027102135110745181134244 17:30522128865351081338152421429217 17:4522012344525741926348726336181 Total21884113262531143936015218230289024142878 Grand Total4516310218474222096781152883343655175432731605 Apprch %20.674.84.66.962.230.826.466.17.620.164.115.8 Total %2.810.20.613.62.926.31342.27.217.92.127.23.410.92.717 SPRUCE AVMILLER AVSPRUCE AVMILLER AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:45517 2163144 2474723773815594200 897310912 17:001912827153745625643236 273451107411244 17:1561570271021351834 35 17:305221288651081338152421429217 Total Volume24855114292551123965716416237309525150897 % App. Total21.174.64.47.364.428.324.169.26.82063.316.7 PHF.750.787.625.838.806.873.800.908.891.804.400.801.625.766.568.852.919 SPRUCE AV OutInTotal 218114332 24855 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 1616457 227237464 OutInTotal SPRUCE AV PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #020DubuqueAve&GrandAve 020080198800 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Dubuque AveThursday, May 22, 20081145 AM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: Grand AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA500 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 101 LN 19024 231 AM 70020 69 MD 67012 106 PM 156056 56 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 28821084049190 1429939514 272613628694953 NORTH 00000 Grand Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Grand Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 1375729123 SOUTH 359137329012546153933021310 00000 AMMDPMTOTAL 000 TOTAL 000 0 PM 000 0 MD 000 0 AM 0000 LN 0 LN 000 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #021GrandAve&EastGrandAve 021080198800 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Grand AveThursday, May 22, 20081145 AM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: East Grand AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA445 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 000 LN 000 0 AM 000 0 MD 000 0 PM 000 0 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 286900000 1399940530 212011097053063 NORTH 632427121 Grand Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST East Grand Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 00000 SOUTH 3652351231123414166594432518 0225645123 AMMDPMTOTAL 74901284 TOTAL 2900212 34 PM 2350308 83 MD 2240764 69 AM 186101 LN 186 LN 101 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #022GatewayBlvd&EastGrandAve 022080198800 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Gateway BlvdThursday, May 22, 20081145 AM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: East Grand AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA445 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 121 LN 8111255 782 AM 12174171 233 MD 734093 260 PM 27625519 289 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 21882269575560 1155711322 195910826112663 NORTH 322159111521 East Grand Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST East Grand Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 116210393358 SOUTH 31229466286198117707634332966 0617574210 AMMDPMTOTAL 202198466 TOTAL 664554 224 PM 8882126 360 MD 4871286 573 AM 1157121 LN 1157 LN 121 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: gateway-grand-a Site Code: 2 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only GATEWAY BLE. GRAND AVGATEWAY BLE. GRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:001617498220431881381710652025226298526 07:1510185886163026726426131031218238232493 07:3062551822254281048760251722220331256614 07:45734781191151309284107212121726345325748 Total399423636969178102349273210695527190014011112381 08:00122166992258341147674121622528234341716 08:1511245792245331108895714160926533307667 08:30153171117247122117985691632028634340737 08:451135711171882361368343151412530019344738 Total49111265425882641234753462305062679113312013322858 Grand Total882055017941574422258246194401191178150203326024435239 Apprch %11.125.863.119.153.627.352.537.410.16.183.210.6 Total %1.73.99.615.238.44.315.711.88.42.322.52.938.8546.6 GATEWAY BLE. GRAND AVGATEWAY BLE. GRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:457 34781191072121245748 115130928417263325 3425341 08:0012216699225811476741216228234716 24 08:15112457925331108895714160926533307667 157111798286 08:30317111724225691632034340737 Total Volume45110272427812331174313472945669771109614613132868 % App. Total10.525.863.718.854.127.149.842.285.483.511.1 PHF.750.809.872.897.844.820.860.921.885.687.667.822.710.958.811.963.959 GATEWAY BL OutInTotal 521427948 45110272 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 56294347 298697995 OutInTotal GATEWAY BL MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: gateway-grand-p Site Code: 2 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only GATEWAY BLE. GRAND AVGATEWAY BLE. GRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:00497937165462039134020231154246818110669 16:15406730137541938433114321763207421115646 16:30548119154582159737019162257266329118699 16:45397019128581867732112362169468030156674 Total18229710558421679734913626510771243116285984992688 17:006710627200472268235515142352278628141748 17:1552878147542158535417422988286817113702 17:30437017130371856829020372784195526100604 17:4532587973214984265275638121267924129612 Total19432159574170775319126479149117345100288954832666 Grand Total3766181641158386157266826261442561885882165731939825354 Apprch %32.553.414.214.759.925.424.543.5322258.419.7 Total %711.53.121.67.229.412.5492.74.83.511410.73.618.3 GATEWAY BLE. GRAND AVGATEWAY BLE. GRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30 16:30548119154 589737019 215162257266329118699 4630156 16:4539701912858186773211236216980674 671062720022686748 17:004782355151423522728141 422988 17:1552878147542158535417286817113702 Total Volume21234473629217842341140063108952661272971045282823 % App. Total33.754.711.615.560.124.423.740.635.724.156.219.7 PHF.791.811.676.786.935.931.879.946.829.643.819.756.690.863.867.846.944 GATEWAY BL OutInTotal 4296291058 21234473 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 16:30 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 9510863 8122661078 OutInTotal GATEWAY BL MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: spruce-grand-a Site Code: 4 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only SPRUCE AVGRAND AVSPRUCE AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:006158293117211810331942253134 07:1511832211521811119311752776147 07:3042163152283591933110651186183 07:45624737135020831242458105440104282 Total1778241192298371575082191514621360319746 08:008224341241146710385538591178232 08:15825639833196014191341143963196 08:30428436126113822246521355876202 08:4501842242884013269481357878188 Total209318131251285220559107211874521436295818 Grand Total371714225047226893621091894033891427966141564 Apprch %14.868.416.8 1362.424.6 32.255.911.8 14.869.515.6 Total %2.410.92.716314.55.723.1712.12.621.65.827.36.139.3 SPRUCE AVGRAND AVSPRUCE AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:45624 371241054 713502083425840104282 08:002243412411467103855381178232 859 08:158256833196014191341143963196 39 08:3044361261138245255876202 2822613 Total Volume269921146341506424858123161974221168321912 % App. Total17.867.814.413.760.525.829.462.48.113.165.721.2 PHF.813.884.750.936.654.750.800.747.659.732.667.849.808.894.425.772.809 SPRUCE AV OutInTotal 225146371 269921 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 1612358 205197402 OutInTotal SPRUCE AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: spruce-grand-p Site Code: 4 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only SPRUCE AVGRAND AVSPRUCE AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:009343467511775234110741039655250 16:15948562747217516318551538861253 16:30547456442216721351672847964259 16:458386525621582284416881648973295 Total31167182162320274299881515028949172322531057 17:009481581455309924397701546667294 17:15748762764269736531610524431481345 17:3015524719642598243815779481168314 17:45843354666219316369611039857265 Total3919115245362491023871001664731358176392731218 Grand Total70358334615945117668618831797602107348715262275 Apprch %15.277.77.28.665.725.731.252.716.120.366.213.5 Total %3.115.71.520.32.619.87.730.28.313.94.326.54.715.33.123.1 SPRUCE AVGRAND AVSPRUCE AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:4583865256215822844 1648 8816973295 143099 17:009481585524397701546667294 7643653105241481345 17:1574862726971643 155271 17:3049642598243815779481168314 Total Volume391861824335245963761121745434064185402891248 % App. Total1676.57.49.365.225.532.951.215.922.16413.8 PHF.650.894.643.856.625.957.800.949.778.821.844.810.667.964.714.892.904 SPRUCE AV OutInTotal 249243492 3918618 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 54174112 346340686 OutInTotal SPRUCE AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: maple-grand-a Site Code: 2 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only MAPLE AVGRAND AVMAPLE AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:003121328317020103114261164126 07:15210719425433166325270274151 07:302971883364767114978188167 07:4531212279396549103221071788191 Total10433992241141615441268752328011314635 08:00418426630440853161874799181 08:153126216297427132221074286171 08:301121629835447107320670480176 08:454168281237352911020862575175 Total125834104321311818134368784228018340703 Grand Total2210173196562453433575621615365560296541338 Apprch %11.251.537.216.773.110.14940.510.59.985.64.4 Total %1.67.55.514.64.218.32.5255.64.61.211.44.941.92.248.9 MAPLE AVGRAND AVMAPLE AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 07:453121227 939543227191 6910107188 418187499 08:00426630440853167181 713 08:153126216294272221074286171 162910 08:301128354477320670480176 Total Volume1154381032913321183343511804428920353719 % App. Total10.752.436.915.872.711.542.543.813.812.581.95.7 PHF.688.750.594.888.806.853.750.847.850.673.917.909.611.976.714.891.941 MAPLE AV OutInTotal 84103187 115438 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 113534 11980199 OutInTotal MAPLE AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: maple-grand-p Site Code: 2 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only GRAND AVMAPLE AVGRAND AVMAPLE AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:001217736165667810239421858480236 16:151036450156015908112211050161222 16:307234341061108111234381763686239 16:4562173412597786246362156885233 Total35972215453236383273581211376622719312930 17:0043312498891010710218391656880275 17:15112184014797100152244113521479260 17:309151337187610104141794020571289270 17:4514179401272109411232361443764234 Total388642166523163740550832315663208413121039 Grand Total7318364320105552757328516444293129435606241969 Apprch %22.857.22014.375.410.229561520.769.79.6 Total %3.79.33.316.35.3283.837.24.38.32.214.96.622.1331.7 GRAND AVMAPLE AVGRAND AVMAPLE AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:004 33498910107275 12810218391656880 154114 17:15112184014797100224135279260 13189205789 17:3091537761010414174012270 1423 17:451794012721094112361443764234 Total Volume388642166523163740550832315663208413121039 % App. Total22.951.825.312.8789.132.153.214.720.266.713.1 PHF.679.652.808.847.722.888.925.946.833.902.639.951.788.912.732.876.945 GRAND AV OutInTotal 176166342 388642 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 17:00 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 238350 186156342 OutInTotal GRAND AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: linden-grand-a Site Code: 3 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only LINDEN AVGRAND AVLINDEN AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:005321047713929710219473683178 07:151039186762443499220874688209 07:3015471880632745782179849102244 07:4574915717427565183261672694247 Total3716761265261112716428459823730327367878 08:0010361157328839716629579387212 08:15632175543774891042311631185211 08:301042166810365516123211370992232 08:451140116214401367615113215551080241 Total371505524231141332052853241054426733344896 Grand Total74317116507572526036956983318781570607111774 Apprch %14.662.522.915.468.316.329.952.417.611.480.28.4 Total %4.217.96.528.63.214.23.420.83.25.51.910.54.632.13.440.1 LINDEN AVGRAND AVLINDEN AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 07:30 15188084102 476327457821799244 49742561816247 07:45715717532672694 8629 08:001036115732839716579387212 911 08:15632175543774810423116385211 Total Volume38164612632013929188285215954129829368914 % App. Total14.462.423.210.673.915.429.554.715.811.1817.9 PHF.633.837.847.822.714.827.906.839.778.722.625.819.641.887.659.902.925 LINDEN AV OutInTotal 101263364 3816461 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 155228 23495329 OutInTotal LINDEN AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: linden-grand-p Site Code: 3 Start Date: 6/6/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only LINDEN AVGRAND AVLINDEN AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:0023447741070119192584218431980287 16:1520471582672139153144012381161274 16:30174711752052259784545716412279308 16:4518511887960148393610551146966291 Total78189513184525463362311372619457168612861160 17:001435146316871011383184717461679302 17:15264115821471171021138105923421782325 17:302256139111801210374185614531481331 17:4523512498867128773194718351164296 Total85183663344930551405331413520972176583061254 Grand Total1633721176529455911476764278614031293441195922414 Apprch %2557.117.912.372.914.915.96915.121.858.120.1 Total %6.815.44.8273.923.24.731.82.711.52.516.75.314.34.924.5 LINDEN AVGRAND AVLINDEN AVGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:0014351463 1687113 1083184717461679302 2617111059231782 17:1541158214711023842325 564153331 17:302213911180121037856141481 2498 17:452351867128773194718351164296 Total Volume85183663344930551405331413520972176583061254 % App. Total25.454.819.812.175.312.615.867.516.723.557.519 PHF.817.817.688.852.766.876.750.896.750.860.875.886.783.830.853.933.947 LINDEN AV OutInTotal 248334582 8518366 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 17:00 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 3514133 306209515 OutInTotal LINDEN AV MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: airport-grand-a Site Code: 3 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only AIRPORT BLGRAND AVAIRPORT BLGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:00177047134181928652078510310275592394 07:15279055172159386232919132172580122488 07:3026968020230224698441178169163765118587 07:45341011022372119418151987156263657119593 Total104357284745846915330614738429560691252574512062 08:003110610123827294710360809149203264116606 08:15241119923412204476548711152303438102564 08:3028871032181318417241779127273940106523 08:4528951212441520518663841015720393796583 Total111399424934678718333721832839585971441794202276 Grand Total21575670816791511563366433657126811451662694368714338 Apprch %12.84542.223.524.352.331.962.25.919.130.950.1 Total %517.416.338.73.53.67.714.88.416.41.626.43.86.210.120.1 AIRPORT BLGRAND AVAIRPORT BLGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 07:30269680202 301171693765 22469844816118587 34102119 07:451012372119418151987156263657593 238294710360606 08:003110610127809149203264116 1111130 08:1524992341220447654871523438102564 Total Volume115414382911909017835820938235626921392244552350 % App. Total12.645.441.925.125.149.733.4615.620.230.549.2 PHF.846.932.936.957.750.776.947.869.871.816.795.926.767.939.862.956.969 AIRPORT BL OutInTotal 6969111607 115414382 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 35382209 6846261310 OutInTotal AIRPORT BL MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: airport-grand-p Site Code: 3 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only AIRPORT BLGRAND AVAIRPORT BLGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:0021822813140491642531193811236154192588 16:15219924144386817728317108131381493356621 16:302987331494962174285171082014534133279658 16:45261092716254701662901499912219214080654 Total9737711258618124968111115940850517103581463072521 17:00341082716961671843121910361282563364673 17:153585211416664203333181292517222195091737 17:302295281455256157265291281417126124987668 17:453398291603749129215271401818523273888648 Total1243861056152162366731125935006365696641703302726 Grand Total22176321712013974851354223615290811311731991223166375247 Apprch %18.463.518.117.821.760.61377.49.631.219.249.6 Total %4.214.54.122.97.69.225.842.62.917.32.222.43.82.3612.1 AIRPORT BLGRAND AVAIRPORT BLGRAND AV SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45 16:4526 1097021 271625416629014999122194080654 169 17:00341082761671843121910361282563364673 3566203333129251725091737 17:15852114164182219 282926 17:302295145525615726512814171124987668 Total Volume1173971036172332577101200804595459392581723222732 % App. Total1964.316.719.421.459.213.577.49.128.61853.4 PHF.836.911.920.913.883.918.874.901.690.890.540.862.885.690.860.885.927 AIRPORT BL OutInTotal 8646171481 117397103 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 16:45 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 5445980 11995931792 OutInTotal AIRPORT BL PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #014AirportBlvd&GrandAve 014080198730 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Airport BlvdThursday, May 22, 20081200 PM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: Grand AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA500 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 11.51.5 LN 102470332 1836 AM 174342216 649 MD 145306160 550 PM 4211118708 637 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 1035363186110671 367429239 4761771971021 NORTH 11065743491832 Grand Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Grand Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 023395165493 SOUTH 111691492565694373161322 1868376245 AMMDPMTOTAL 138980358 TOTAL 45298107 739 PM 58345130 774 MD 35337121 956 AM 2469121 LN 2469 LN 121 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAK HOUR ITM SUMMARY #003 101 NB off ramp / Indust. Way & East Grand Avenue 003090119800 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: 101 NB off ramp / Indust. WayWednesday, June 03, 2009 NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: East Grand AvenueSouth San Francisco, CA500 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 000 LN 000 644 AM 000 74 MD 000 0 PM 000 570 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 02390141 000 00000 NORTH 00000 East Grand Avenue 1-WAY YIELD (WB) WESTEAST East Grand Avenue LNAMMDPMTOTAL 00000 SOUTH 000001533 10620471 00000 AMMDPMTOTAL 06211533 TOTAL 065471 0 PM 000 0 MD 05561062 0 AM 001.50.5 LN AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT - TO - PM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITY TRAFFIC DATA, LLC 9701 W Pico Blvd, Suite 205, Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: 310-341-0019 Fax: 310-807-9247 Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #012LindenAve&BadenAve 012080198745 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Linden AveThursday, May 22, 20081200 PM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: Baden AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA430 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 010 LN 2420227 612 AM 7114435 238 MD 6417637 226 PM 15952299 148 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 5951064055110.5 231264100 397150175720.5 NORTH 7042862092091 Baden Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Baden Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 0.516344494 SOUTH 02531901045475674553721394 0.5684530143 AMMDPMTOTAL 39412748 TOTAL 17154231 479 PM 18137230 398 MD 4121287 492 AM 136905.05.2 LN 1369 LN 05052 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #013AirportBlvd&BadenAve 013080198730 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: Airport BlvdThursday, May 22, 20081200 PM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: Baden AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA500 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 121 LN 1895300 1509 AM 2255290 486 MD 2307240 544 PM 64417830 479 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 116000000 431444285 00000 NORTH 00000 Baden Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Baden Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 0339290253882 SOUTH 0.500000000 0235172165572 AMMDPMTOTAL 5166270 TOTAL 2012330 765 PM 2192540 701 MD 961400 889 AM 2355220 LN 2355 LN 220 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #016SouthAirportBlvd/ProduceAve&SanMateoAve 016080198745 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: South Airport Blvd/Produce AveWednesday, May 21, 20081145 AM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: San Mateo AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA445 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 121 LN 50767142 1325 AM 88572173 560 MD 761004152 496 PM 2142343467 269 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 11509014103141771 332376442 5491781592121.5 NORTH 12536323582631.5 San Mateo Ave SIGNALIZED WESTEAST San Mateo Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 1.550129121300 SOUTH 1.51331661344336096384771724 1106149200455 AMMDPMTOTAL 387124824 TOTAL 7829191 1136 PM 12953299 1079 MD 18042334 1836 AM 4051121 LN 4051 LN 121 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #017SouthAirportBlvd/GatewayBlvd&SouthAirportBlvd/MitchellAve 017080198800 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: South Airport Blvd / Gateway BlvdWednesday, May 21, 20081145 AM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: South Airport Blvd / Mitchell AveS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA430 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 111 LN 1341296 845 AM 19818617 158 MD 3551977 283 PM 68751230 404 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 2684123270 1199837648 662350221911 NORTH 18110354241 South Airport Blvd SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Mitchell Ave LNAMMDPMTOTAL 1786231171 SOUTH 0.518097101378518181169868 1.53904833421215 AMMDPMTOTAL 1335662460 TOTAL 49412461 543 PM 41821967 723 MD 423319332 642 AM 1908221 LN 1908 LN 221 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: airport-wonder color-a Site Code: 4 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only AIRPORT BLVDWONDER COLOR LNAIRPORT BLVDUS 101 NB RAMPS SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 07:00195437611243302659641143208347 07:15256159132274333168763155234400 07:301774293146119413080825176263447 07:452310221272181126735104912200293535 Total842911238778183318171122311313116749981729 08:001968390247132492980922228322505 08:1526914121412725948109821205288525 08:3022841107414967237115993181283514 08:459964109304728150133914228323572 Total76339124271361736122611644373641084212162116 Grand Total16063024814201435693043228674867721151622143845 Apprch %19.777.42.9 2920.350.7 457.838.2 30.60.968.5 Total %4.216.40.621.20.50.40.91.80.811.27.419.517.60.539.457.6 AIRPORT BLVDWONDER COLOR LNAIRPORT BLVDUS 101 NB RAMPS SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 08:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 08:0019683902 2492980922322505 4713228 08:159112725948109821205288525 2641214 08:3022841107414972371153181283514 699 08:45941093047291228 9681501334323572 Total Volume76339124271361736122611644373641084212162116 % App. Total17.879.42.836.116.747.22.759.737.529.90.869.2 PHF.731.883.750.882.813.375.607.692.500.806.820.821.919.625.923.941.925 AIRPORT BLVD OutInTotal 11164271543 7633912 RTTHLT Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 Vehicles Only LTTHRT 16426112 7204371157 OutInTotal AIRPORT BLVD MARKS TRAFFIC DATA mietekm@comcast.net 916.806.0250 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOFile Name: airport-wonder color-p Site Code: 4 Start Date: 10/10/2013 Page No: 1 Groups Printed- Vehicles Only AIRPORT BLVDWONDER COLOR LNAIRPORT BLVDUS 101 NB RAMPS SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLT RTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT U-turnU-turn Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total 16:00241124214243310363658139518131190481 16:154216370212710183526151912338498140510 16:3027162611961051934381776167434101148545 16:45421399119124612374888173407114161537 Total135576264741232246911127928131602172234446392073 17:0048159802150066680694159405130175555 17:15471608121641271175613150422178222595 17:301916772195564153136692210365149190610 17:45161097313521586144686224411134176543 Total13059530676111817362643526715743159135917632303 Grand Total2651171561015023430631273771454846134533136103514024376 Apprch %17.6783.70.7 26.823.649.6 2.853.140.73.4 23.62.673.8 Total %6.126.81.30.234.30.80.71.42.90.816.312.51.130.77.60.823.732 AIRPORT BLVDWONDER COLOR LNAIRPORT BLVDUS 101 NB RAMPS SouthboundWestboundNorthboundEastbound Start TimeRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLTRTTHLT U-turnU-turn Int. Total App. TotalApp. TotalApp. TotalApp. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 17:00 17:00 4886695 1590215006680415940130175555 2161142178222 17:1547160814127756131502595 1675615610 17:30197219543136692210365149190 31446224 17:451610971352158668411134176543 Total Volume13059530676111817362643526715743159135917632303 % App. Total17.178.23.90.830.622.247.23.558.535.9220.81.777.5 PHF.677.891.938.500.881.550.333.708.600.591.755.967.625.829.946.650.830.859.944 AIRPORT BLVD OutInTotal 10377611798 130595306 RTTHLTU-turn Peak Hour Data North Peak Hour Begins at 17:00 Vehicles Only LTTHRTU-turn 2674352615 7717431514 OutInTotal AIRPORT BLVD PEAKHOURITMSUMMARY #018SouthAirportBlvd&WndrclrLn/101NBRamps 018080198745 AM LOCATION #:QTD PRJ #:AM PEAK: South Airport BlvdWednesday, May 21, 20081200 PM NORTH / SOUTH:DATE:MD PEAK: Wndrclr Ln / 101 NB RampsS. SAN FRANCISCO, CA445 PM EAST / WEST:VICINITY:PM PEAK: 121 LN 10439235 2423 AM 15654021 659 MD 15347616 701 PM 413140872 1063 TOTAL TOTALPMMDAM TOTALPMMDAMLN 1146391216111 476408262 2384111 NORTH 511617180 US-101 NB On-Off Ramps SIGNALIZED WESTEAST Wondercolor Ln LNAMMDPMTOTAL 1.58033553581516 SOUTH 0.52691348764444164 1366241188795 AMMDPMTOTAL 71086844 TOTAL 31528915 776 PM 24833014 798 MD 14724915 680 AM 2254120 LN 2254 LN 120 AM COUNT7:00 AMTO9:00 AMMD COUNT11:00 AMTO1:00 PMPM COUNT4:00 PMTO6:00 PM QUALITYTRAFFICDATA,LLC 11040SantaMonicaBlvd,Suite207,LosAngeles,CA90025 Phone:3103410019Fax:3108079247Info@QualityTrafficData.com Appendix B Level of Service Worksheets Intersection Queuing, Intersection LOS, and Freeway Analysis South San Francisco Caltrain Station Area Plan EIR April 2014 SF12-0610 Existing AM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)1377226413167228 v/c Ratio0.310.150.620.030.410.45 Control Delay19.75.926.29.219.420.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.75.926.29.219.420.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)3908304163 Queue Length 95th (ft)802515211103119 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)436488429445410507 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.310.150.620.030.410.45 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)41876892156122311816817333 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.990.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)183315831829158318241821 Flt Permitted0.851.000.841.000.800.99 Satd. Flow (perm)158515831561158314681804 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)44937298166132412617918435 RTOR Reduction (vph)00520090700110 Lane Group Flow (vph)013720026440160002170 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)436435429435404496 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.090.01c0.170.00c0.11c0.12 v/c Ratio0.310.050.620.010.400.44 Uniform Delay, d117.316.019.015.817.717.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.941.00 Incremental Delay, d21.90.26.50.02.92.8 Delay (s)19.116.225.515.819.620.7 Level of ServiceBBCBBC Approach Delay (s)18.125.019.620.7 Approach LOSBCBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay21.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization48.9%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)123298306170507 v/c Ratio0.550.340.340.340.74 Control Delay48.716.416.327.243.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay48.716.416.327.243.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)7410610847157 Queue Length 95th (ft)124213217m77200 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)263905937586776 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.470.330.330.290.65 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)001124171321361180040854 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.950.950.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.001.001.000.98 Flt Protected1.000.950.970.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15651633169034883356 Flt Permitted1.000.950.970.991.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15651633169034883356 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Adj. Flow (vph)001234581451401300044859 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000100 Lane Group Flow (vph)0012329830600170004970 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplit Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)14.253.753.714.220.1 Effective Green, g (s)14.253.753.714.220.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.140.540.540.140.20 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)222877908495675 v/s Ratio Protc0.08c0.180.180.05c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.550.340.340.340.74 Uniform Delay, d140.013.113.138.737.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.681.00 Incremental Delay, d23.71.11.00.44.2 Delay (s)43.614.214.126.941.6 Level of ServiceDBBCD Approach Delay (s)43.614.126.941.6 Approach LOSDBCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay28.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization45.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)23013616175117 v/c Ratio0.660.650.050.140.09 Control Delay30.640.210.52.43.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay30.640.210.52.43.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)77550810 Queue Length 95th (ft)12092123230 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)90158981112291289 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.260.230.020.140.09 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)161265551661425665997319 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.000.850.950.97 Flt Protected1.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17851823158317491808 Flt Permitted0.970.621.000.960.98 Satd. Flow (perm)17391162158316861783 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.86 Adj. Flow (vph)1914764597716297769108522 RTOR Reduction (vph)033000130150060 Lane Group Flow (vph)01970013630160001110 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)12.612.612.650.450.4 Effective Green, g (s)12.612.612.650.450.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.180.180.180.720.72 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)31320928512141284 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.11c0.120.00c0.090.06 v/c Ratio0.630.650.010.130.09 Uniform Delay, d126.526.723.63.02.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.741.00 Incremental Delay, d23.05.40.00.20.1 Delay (s)29.632.123.62.43.1 Level of ServiceCCCAA Approach Delay (s)29.631.22.43.1 Approach LOSCCAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay18.3HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization41.0%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)406795726921 v/c Ratio0.320.160.150.460.14 Control Delay41.02.52.052.918.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay41.02.52.052.918.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)202613430 Queue Length 95th (ft)m32m49318422 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22342553691309288 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.180.160.150.220.07 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)38652513366620 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940467517191488 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940467517191488 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)40679534386921 RTOR Reduction (vph)0030019 Lane Group Flow (vph)406795690692 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)4.884.575.77.57.5 Effective Green, g (s)4.884.575.77.57.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.840.760.080.08 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)8341743539129112 v/s Ratio Protc0.02c0.140.12c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm0.00 v/c Ratio0.480.160.160.530.01 Uniform Delay, d146.41.43.444.642.8 Progression Factor0.821.520.501.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.20.10.12.10.0 Delay (s)39.32.21.846.742.8 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)4.21.845.8 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay5.9HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.21 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization33.3%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)72616320234799 v/c Ratio0.540.150.220.240.78 Control Delay24.024.816.410.716.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.024.816.410.716.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)12063362227 Queue Length 95th (ft)1501641122#574 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)245713829239931022 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn10000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.300.120.110.240.78 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)6962316317232791 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)49051719471516411506 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)49051719471516411506 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)7032316320234799 RTOR Reduction (vph)50000111 Lane Group Flow (vph)721016320234688 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)24.92.631.560.560.5 Effective Green, g (s)24.92.631.560.560.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.250.030.320.600.60 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1221451485993911 v/s Ratio Protc0.15c0.010.070.14 v/s Ratio Permc0.46 v/c Ratio0.590.360.220.240.75 Uniform Delay, d133.147.925.29.114.4 Progression Factor0.720.490.661.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.11.70.30.03.2 Delay (s)26.025.216.99.117.5 Level of ServiceCCBAB Approach Delay (s)26.017.315.6 Approach LOSCBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay19.5HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.7%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)152121612232758667283162 v/c Ratio0.250.690.770.580.180.850.850.21 Control Delay19.021.970.830.328.833.165.328.3 Queue Delay0.00.30.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.022.270.830.328.833.165.328.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)4926379562715617737 Queue Length 95th (ft)m79186#1688266192#35668 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)601177316816443398993311170 Starvation Cap Reductn0133000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.250.740.730.200.170.740.850.14 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)146109671117233815629434727211045 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.911.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.981.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.991.000.961.000.921.000.96 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194884171945661641311617193314 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194884171945661641311617193314 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)152114274122243845830636128311547 RTOR Reduction (vph)0700760019100370 Lane Group Flow (vph)1521209012225105847602831250 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtProtProtProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)35.034.69.39.117.418.920.821.7 Effective Green, g (s)35.034.69.39.117.418.920.821.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.090.090.170.190.210.22 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6021690160416286589358719 v/s Ratio Prot0.09c0.25c0.070.050.04c0.15c0.160.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.250.720.760.600.200.810.790.17 Uniform Delay, d123.228.444.343.735.438.837.531.9 Progression Factor0.740.730.910.830.950.891.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.12.217.36.30.17.410.60.0 Delay (s)17.323.057.742.533.841.848.131.9 Level of ServiceBCEDCDDC Approach Delay (s)22.446.741.242.2 Approach LOSCDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay33.5HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.2%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)39626442244180 v/c Ratio0.670.500.070.260.20 Control Delay22.419.04.511.014.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay22.419.04.511.014.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)1348614662 Queue Length 95th (ft)1429712100108 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)831750832924904 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.480.350.050.260.20 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)682114264150341612358219926 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)18111835158317811805 Flt Permitted0.880.781.000.970.95 Satd. Flow (perm)16021459158317441719 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.81 Adj. Flow (vph)8426052791854220152722612232 RTOR Reduction (vph)010000230160090 Lane Group Flow (vph)038600264190228001710 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)25.625.625.636.436.4 Effective Green, g (s)25.625.625.636.436.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.370.370.370.520.52 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)586534579907894 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.240.180.01c0.130.10 v/c Ratio0.660.490.030.250.19 Uniform Delay, d118.517.214.29.39.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.33 Incremental Delay, d23.01.00.00.70.5 Delay (s)21.518.214.39.912.3 Level of ServiceCBBAB Approach Delay (s)21.517.69.912.3 Approach LOSCBAB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay16.5HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization51.6%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)328471633110985 v/c Ratio0.340.050.170.040.200.14 Control Delay9.23.15.71.814.110.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay9.23.15.71.814.110.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)6112112512 Queue Length 95th (ft)1061339m55638 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)974863939859553590 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.340.050.170.040.200.14 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)20289442113329385411113534 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.990.94 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185715831850158318021744 Flt Permitted0.981.000.941.000.890.97 Satd. Flow (perm)182815831760158316381698 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)21307472214131405712123736 RTOR Reduction (vph)001900140700240 Lane Group Flow (vph)032828016317010200610 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)975844939844546566 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.180.020.090.01c0.060.04 v/c Ratio0.340.030.170.020.190.11 Uniform Delay, d18.06.77.26.614.213.8 Progression Factor1.001.000.720.581.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.90.10.40.00.80.4 Delay (s)8.96.75.53.915.014.2 Level of ServiceAAAABB Approach Delay (s)8.65.315.014.2 Approach LOSAABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay9.3HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization46.5%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)3514418022102283 v/c Ratio0.450.060.240.030.140.38 Control Delay10.84.211.94.98.313.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay10.84.211.94.98.313.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)5413901573 Queue Length 95th (ft)847761039143 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)781702738698749736 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.060.240.030.140.38 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)292984129139201552286116438 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185515831847158317751805 Flt Permitted0.971.000.921.000.950.92 Satd. Flow (perm)180215831705158316911674 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)313204431149221656306617641 RTOR Reduction (vph)0016001201700100 Lane Group Flow (vph)035128018010085002730 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)781686739686733725 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.190.020.110.010.05c0.16 v/c Ratio0.450.040.240.010.120.38 Uniform Delay, d112.09.810.89.710.111.5 Progression Factor0.720.701.001.001.001.10 Incremental Delay, d21.80.10.80.00.31.4 Delay (s)10.47.011.69.710.514.0 Level of ServiceBABABB Approach Delay (s)10.111.410.514.0 Approach LOSBBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay11.5HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization57.2%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)37495184939336394215268553119 v/c Ratio0.900.230.620.510.400.130.740.560.730.650.25 Control Delay60.97.636.434.58.639.352.421.747.537.811.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay60.97.636.434.58.639.352.421.747.537.811.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)218031311231368019519815 Queue Length 95th (ft)#3923849567m41188119#334229m45 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)150 Base Capacity (vph)440428327199248315631443368848476 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.850.220.560.470.380.110.620.490.730.650.25 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)22413992178909035382209382414115 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.001.000.951.000.910.911.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.981.001.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.950.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15951302271716601386157731541384123228381315 Flt Permitted0.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.950.991.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15951302271716601386157731541384123228381315 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)23114395184939336394215394427119 RTOR Reduction (vph)007000830000084 Lane Group Flow (vph)03742518493103639421526855335 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermSplitpt+ovSplitPerm Protected Phases8877666 722 Permitted Phases872 Actuated Green, G (s)26.226.211.011.011.017.017.028.029.829.829.8 Effective Green, g (s)26.226.211.011.011.017.017.028.029.829.829.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.260.260.110.110.110.170.170.280.300.300.30 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)418341299183152268536388367846392 v/s Ratio Protc0.23c0.070.060.02c0.120.16c0.220.19 v/s Ratio Perm0.020.010.03 v/c Ratio0.890.070.620.510.070.130.740.550.730.650.09 Uniform Delay, d135.627.842.542.039.935.239.430.731.530.625.3 Progression Factor1.001.000.640.590.401.121.131.071.051.051.81 Incremental Delay, d220.90.13.72.20.20.24.61.310.83.50.4 Delay (s)56.527.830.926.816.239.849.234.243.835.646.2 Level of ServiceECCCBDDCDDD Approach Delay (s)50.726.243.739.3 Approach LOSDCDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay40.7HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization69.3%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)014576110000 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)015613117000 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume11988911783 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol11988911783 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10095100 cM capacity (veh/h)178285344 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2 Volume Total154091374 Volume Left000 Volume Right1501170 cSH28517001700 Volume to Capacity0.050.240.81 Queue Length 95th (ft)400 Control Delay (s)18.30.00.0 Lane LOSC Approach Delay (s)18.30.0 Approach LOSC Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)37523293138319282 v/c Ratio0.531.130.240.370.230.79 Control Delay21.0133.021.224.41.240.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay21.0133.021.224.41.240.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)63~12429500112 Queue Length 95th (ft)111#254669314189 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)7102053854451480428 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.531.130.240.310.220.66 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1726270216751141252972820925 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.981.000.850.99 Flt Protected1.000.951.001.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)271014131451148522241451 Flt Permitted0.710.531.000.991.000.96 Satd. Flow (perm)19367871451147522241405 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)1828275232811241343193022527 RTOR Reduction (vph)028007000156050 Lane Group Flow (vph)03470232860013816302770 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)25.719.019.018.340.818.3 Effective Green, g (s)25.719.019.018.337.318.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.260.260.250.510.25 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6822053783701136352 v/s Ratio Prot0.060.07 v/s Ratio Permc0.18c0.290.09c0.20 v/c Ratio0.511.130.230.370.140.79 Uniform Delay, d118.727.021.222.69.425.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.7102.80.10.20.010.2 Delay (s)21.4129.821.322.89.435.7 Level of ServiceCFCCAD Approach Delay (s)21.498.713.535.7 Approach LOSCFBD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay39.2HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization73.0%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)61310218523566202 v/c Ratio0.850.150.100.240.480.33 Control Delay36.625.55.864.818.93.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay36.625.55.864.818.93.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)1382914169519 Queue Length 95th (ft)1826034m251178 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9767351816941326671 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.630.140.100.240.430.30 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3512439917922549196 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.941.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)257927402825141328251201 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)257927402825141328251201 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)36225110218523566202 RTOR Reduction (vph)14500000122 Lane Group Flow (vph)46801021852356680 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)22.425.561.93.139.539.5 Effective Green, g (s)22.425.561.93.139.539.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.220.260.620.030.400.40 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5786991749441116474 v/s Ratio Protc0.18c0.040.070.02c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm0.07 v/c Ratio0.810.150.110.520.510.17 Uniform Delay, d136.828.87.847.722.919.6 Progression Factor1.000.890.621.350.700.69 Incremental Delay, d27.80.00.14.41.40.7 Delay (s)44.525.84.968.717.514.1 Level of ServiceDCAEBB Approach Delay (s)44.512.318.1 Approach LOSDBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay26.7HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization56.9%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)4818511116233518518839214868753 v/c Ratio0.340.560.450.610.560.420.720.750.180.530.08 Control Delay47.749.314.049.443.314.455.217.211.321.66.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay47.749.314.049.443.314.455.217.211.321.66.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)316201231272711614291965 Queue Length 95th (ft)69974919616410017756m119#359m22 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)2515853553668185433258208001291632 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.190.320.310.440.410.340.580.480.180.530.08 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)521781102722201831864334614768052 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.981.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.871.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.950.981.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923248146814163167156817522658171933121541 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.950.981.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923248146814163167156817522658171933121541 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)531801112752221851884334914868753 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010000150032300032 Lane Group Flow (vph)48185111623353518869014868721 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)10.110.110.118.818.818.815.07.446.639.039.0 Effective Green, g (s)10.110.110.118.818.818.815.07.446.639.039.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.100.100.190.190.190.150.070.470.390.39 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1413281482665952952631978011292601 v/s Ratio Prot0.03c0.060.01c0.110.110.02c0.110.030.09c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.340.560.080.610.560.120.710.350.180.530.03 Uniform Delay, d141.842.940.737.236.933.740.544.015.623.518.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.111.112.481.001.000.550.710.68 Incremental Delay, d20.51.30.13.81.20.27.50.40.51.40.1 Delay (s)42.444.240.845.142.083.747.944.49.118.012.9 Level of ServiceDDDDDFDDABB Approach Delay (s)42.854.045.516.2 Approach LOSDDDB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay37.1HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization58.7%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)83314288261074476886137142 v/c Ratio0.530.810.520.250.370.270.420.030.640.47 Control Delay52.946.810.250.239.018.011.649.863.527.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay52.946.810.250.239.018.011.649.863.527.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)55133201664869449423 Queue Length 95th (ft)8829414643101m10093m10m142m84 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)19043658212439916381640317358411 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.440.720.490.210.270.270.420.020.380.35 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)81186404259874383303446134139 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.970.951.001.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.990.981.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.940.851.000.991.000.921.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1641161914431556182333353054158317921483 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1641161914431556182333353054158317921483 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)831904122610074473373516137142 RTOR Reduction (vph)0242230200148000125 Lane Group Flow (vph)83290652610504475400613717 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)8.422.622.63.017.246.446.412.012.012.0 Effective Green, g (s)8.422.622.63.017.246.446.412.012.012.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.080.230.230.030.170.460.460.120.120.12 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1383663264731415471417190215178 v/s Ratio Prot0.05c0.180.02c0.060.13c0.180.00c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm0.050.01 v/c Ratio0.600.790.200.550.330.290.380.030.640.10 Uniform Delay, d144.236.531.447.836.416.617.438.941.939.2 Progression Factor0.970.981.901.001.000.940.911.371.253.31 Incremental Delay, d24.710.00.17.80.20.40.60.04.00.1 Delay (s)47.845.759.655.636.616.016.653.256.3129.9 Level of ServiceDDEEDBBDEF Approach Delay (s)51.840.316.392.9 Approach LOSDDBF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay38.4HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization56.1%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)46245439125131762941336582 v/c Ratio0.820.800.540.270.140.670.200.150.390.18 Control Delay40.639.26.749.923.830.38.352.935.816.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay40.639.26.749.923.830.38.352.935.816.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)2712652415038208780 Queue Length 95th (ft)35834984432070130m18#221m44 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5865887463823542751497128939461 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.790.770.520.070.040.640.200.100.390.18 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)842103641706131642611212339 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.951.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.990.981.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.960.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715231406146713261597316215973195 Flt Permitted0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715231406146713261597316215973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)905113911806141762811313365 RTOR Reduction (vph)002080101202000 Lane Group Flow (vph)46245418302401176292013365 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtProt Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)37.137.137.14.44.416.443.61.428.1 Effective Green, g (s)37.137.137.14.44.416.443.61.428.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.370.370.370.040.040.160.440.010.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5635655226558262137922898 v/s Ratio Protc0.300.30c0.02c0.110.090.01c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm0.130.00 v/c Ratio0.820.800.350.370.010.670.210.590.41 Uniform Delay, d128.428.222.746.545.739.317.549.029.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.470.421.111.03 Incremental Delay, d28.97.70.11.30.06.30.322.41.2 Delay (s)37.335.922.947.745.724.67.776.931.4 Level of ServiceDDCDDCAEC Approach Delay (s)32.547.114.034.7 Approach LOSCDBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay29.4HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization58.7%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)76 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1389 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1389 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)82 RTOR Reduction (vph)59 Lane Group Flow (vph)23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)28.1 Effective Green, g (s)28.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.28 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)390 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.06 Uniform Delay, d126.3 Progression Factor1.62 Incremental Delay, d20.3 Delay (s)42.8 Level of ServiceD Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V9,480vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,495veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v10,278pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume8,979pcph11,750pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume1,299pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,713pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,63.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.73 Density,D26.9pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,264vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,175veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,960pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,792pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.8mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.76 Density,D28.5pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,892vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,814veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,472pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,868pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,61.9mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.79 Density,D30.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,826vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,796veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,401pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,850pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.1mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.79 Density,D29.8pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,6462461,6180vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,749654260veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,2062631,7540pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.219 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,017lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,727lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 288 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC630lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,357lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.583 Averageweavingspeed,S34.4mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S41.6mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S39.8mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D46.4pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.92 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v9,223pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c9,726vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,964pcph11,750pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,498pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume263pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,729pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003004,728ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0042,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.921.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,1766507160vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,6251711880veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,6966947760pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.180 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,471lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,464lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 870 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC961lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,425lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.639 Averageweavingspeed,S45.5mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S44.6mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S44.8mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D45.6pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.99 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,167pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,032vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,483pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,412pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume694pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume765pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503004,334ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0682,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.991.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,384690443148vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,68018111639veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,921737480158pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.147 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,216lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,073lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 113 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC644lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 1,718lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S46.3mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.02 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,295pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,917vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,414pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,678pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume894pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume630pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803003,998ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0382,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.021.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,605vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,264veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,330pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume7,978pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume1,352pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,332pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,52.7mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.99 Density,D44.3pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,340vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,932veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,958pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,990pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,60.1mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.85 Density,D33.1pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,040vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,116veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,717pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,969pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume748pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,179pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,56.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.93 Density,D38.6pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,704vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,291veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,437pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume9,215pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume222pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,359pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.00 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,912vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,345veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,662pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,416pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.03 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V8,409295331200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,213788753veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v9,117315359214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.067 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 674lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC542lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 616 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,331lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 1,873lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.889 Averageweavingspeed,S41.5mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S48.1mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S47.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.18 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v10,005pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,268vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,484pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,445pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume529pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume567pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303003,226ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,1282,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.181.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V8,052684860250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,11918022666veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,730731932267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.156 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,663lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,625lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,026 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,392lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,017lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExisting TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.842 Averageweavingspeed,S42.1mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S40.2mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S40.5mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.28 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v10,660pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,083vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,677pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,489pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume998pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,186pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703004,091ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0812,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.281.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Existing PM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)1009443934220274 v/c Ratio0.410.190.980.080.530.54 Control Delay24.05.662.610.320.122.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.05.662.610.320.122.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)29015634479 Queue Length 95th (ft)6928#31921121145 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)243503450451417507 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.410.190.980.080.530.54 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)504993121314342617616922340 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.990.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)181615831837158318341823 Flt Permitted0.471.000.881.000.810.99 Satd. Flow (perm)88515831635158315011807 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)514994122317342617816922540 RTOR Reduction (vph)006800160400100 Lane Group Flow (vph)0100260439180216002640 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)243435450435413497 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.110.02c0.270.01c0.14c0.15 v/c Ratio0.410.060.980.040.520.53 Uniform Delay, d117.816.021.616.018.418.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.831.00 Incremental Delay, d25.10.336.80.24.64.0 Delay (s)22.916.358.316.119.922.5 Level of ServiceCBEBBC Approach Delay (s)19.755.319.922.5 Approach LOSBEBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay34.9HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization63.5%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)116289409451420 v/c Ratio0.340.560.740.590.54 Control Delay19.920.728.319.017.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.920.728.319.017.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)27761175552 Queue Length 95th (ft)68#153#254m8277 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)3465155507701096 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.340.560.740.590.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0010629234211462650033250 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.950.950.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.001.001.000.98 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15651633174234803353 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.981.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15651633174234803353 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Adj. Flow (vph)0011632137611602910036555 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000270 Lane Group Flow (vph)0011628940900451003930 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplit Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)11.115.715.711.111.2 Effective Green, g (s)11.115.715.711.111.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.220.310.310.220.22 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)347513547773751 v/s Ratio Prot0.070.18c0.23c0.13c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.330.560.750.580.52 Uniform Delay, d116.314.315.417.417.1 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.901.00 Incremental Delay, d20.84.49.01.30.7 Delay (s)17.118.724.416.917.7 Level of ServiceBBCBB Approach Delay (s)17.122.116.917.7 Approach LOSBCBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay19.3HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization51.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)16339932257123 v/c Ratio0.300.760.060.250.12 Control Delay16.432.77.912.88.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay16.432.77.912.88.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)5017633521 Queue Length 95th (ft)772231716559 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)83682283210401051 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.190.490.040.250.12 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)25953011225529161645758524 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.970.97 Flt Protected0.990.981.001.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17971835158317961806 Flt Permitted0.880.851.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (perm)15881584158317731794 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Adj. Flow (vph)271033312227732171786259226 RTOR Reduction (vph)016000150100080 Lane Group Flow (vph)014700399170247001150 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)26.526.526.546.546.5 Effective Green, g (s)26.526.526.546.546.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.330.330.330.580.58 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)52652552410311043 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.09c0.250.01c0.140.06 v/c Ratio0.280.760.030.240.11 Uniform Delay, d119.723.918.18.17.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.311.00 Incremental Delay, d20.15.80.00.50.2 Delay (s)19.829.718.111.27.7 Level of ServiceBCBBA Approach Delay (s)19.828.811.27.7 Approach LOSBCBA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay20.0HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization56.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)3636117451583 v/c Ratio0.300.080.460.130.47 Control Delay51.01.01.745.618.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay51.01.01.745.618.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)2361790 Queue Length 95th (ft)m47m12872945 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)15543483806143200 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.230.080.460.100.41 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)353471627481480 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940469817191477 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940469817191477 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)363611695501583 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010078 Lane Group Flow (vph)3636117440155 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)4.686.477.85.65.6 Effective Green, g (s)4.686.477.85.65.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.860.780.060.06 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)79426836559683 v/s Ratio Protc0.020.07c0.37c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm0.00 v/c Ratio0.460.080.480.160.06 Uniform Delay, d146.51.03.945.044.7 Progression Factor1.020.860.311.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.50.00.40.30.1 Delay (s)49.00.91.645.244.8 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)5.31.644.9 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay4.2HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization44.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)365521342351256 v/c Ratio0.140.390.440.770.43 Control Delay10.849.210.144.45.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.90.00.0 Total Delay10.849.211.044.45.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)3430892050 Queue Length 95th (ft)73m4633227050 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)26281493033673769 Starvation Cap Reductn00128200 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.140.350.770.520.33 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)30754511329347253 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)47841719471516411506 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)47841719471516411506 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)31055521342351256 RTOR Reduction (vph)190000185 Lane Group Flow (vph)346052134235171 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)53.86.564.327.727.7 Effective Green, g (s)53.86.564.327.727.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.540.060.640.280.28 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)25741123032455417 v/s Ratio Prot0.070.03c0.28c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm0.05 v/c Ratio0.130.460.440.770.17 Uniform Delay, d111.545.18.933.227.4 Progression Factor0.890.960.981.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.11.00.47.90.2 Delay (s)10.344.39.141.127.6 Level of ServiceBDADC Approach Delay (s)10.310.435.4 Approach LOSBBD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay16.8HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization64.9%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)111451363112710118278592 v/c Ratio0.450.310.910.590.580.220.500.80 Control Delay37.615.568.828.359.022.553.637.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.0 Total Delay37.615.568.828.459.022.553.637.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)6330234229662948150 Queue Length 95th (ft)8565#491281m121m5892195 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)268146739919211778482411052 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0001480003 Storage Cap Reductn00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.410.310.910.640.570.210.320.56 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)104297127341842217951086373344212 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.911.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.991.001.001.000.991.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.961.000.971.000.941.000.94 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194665171945981641322917193254 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194665171945981641322917193254 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)1113161353638962311011156778366226 RTOR Reduction (vph)07800420051001080 Lane Group Flow (vph)1113730363108501011310784840 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtProtProtProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)13.229.023.239.211.423.57.919.4 Effective Green, g (s)13.229.023.239.211.423.57.919.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.130.290.230.390.110.240.080.19 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)22713533991802187759136631 v/s Ratio Protc0.060.08c0.21c0.24c0.060.040.05c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.490.280.910.600.540.170.570.77 Uniform Delay, d140.327.437.424.241.830.544.438.2 Progression Factor0.800.741.021.121.071.141.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.60.523.61.51.70.03.65.0 Delay (s)33.020.761.828.746.434.748.043.2 Level of ServiceCCECDCDD Approach Delay (s)23.136.838.943.7 Approach LOSCDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay36.0HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization78.2%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)32137939377270 v/c Ratio0.540.720.070.430.29 Control Delay20.128.77.514.218.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.128.77.514.218.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)11316059588 Queue Length 95th (ft)14319818216172 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)868777861887946 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.370.490.050.430.29 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40185649624535541741121818639 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17951837158317661816 Flt Permitted0.880.781.000.910.96 Satd. Flow (perm)15911446158316281758 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90 Adj. Flow (vph)442067110727239601931242020743 RTOR Reduction (vph)018000140160060 Lane Group Flow (vph)030300379250361002640 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)29.229.229.242.842.8 Effective Green, g (s)29.229.229.242.842.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.360.360.360.530.53 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)581528578871941 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.19c0.260.02c0.220.15 v/c Ratio0.520.720.040.410.28 Uniform Delay, d119.921.916.411.110.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.48 Incremental Delay, d21.15.00.01.50.7 Delay (s)21.026.816.412.615.8 Level of ServiceCCBBB Approach Delay (s)21.025.812.615.8 Approach LOSCCBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay19.2HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization76.6%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)2626637255164175 v/c Ratio0.290.080.390.060.280.31 Control Delay8.82.46.71.812.314.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay8.82.46.71.812.314.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)4705013138 Queue Length 95th (ft)861476m67081 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)904875947864592561 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.290.080.390.060.280.31 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)41208633731652238350428638 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.991.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)184815831853158317691783 Flt Permitted0.911.000.951.000.950.90 Satd. Flow (perm)169515831774158316911629 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)43219663933355248753449140 RTOR Reduction (vph)0031002002900180 Lane Group Flow (vph)0262350372350135001570 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)904844946844564543 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.150.02c0.210.020.08c0.10 v/c Ratio0.290.040.390.040.240.29 Uniform Delay, d17.76.78.36.714.514.8 Progression Factor1.001.000.650.501.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.80.11.10.11.01.3 Delay (s)8.56.86.43.415.516.1 Level of ServiceAAAABB Approach Delay (s)8.26.115.516.1 Approach LOSAABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay9.7HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization57.1%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)2467637552220351 v/c Ratio0.360.100.500.070.300.48 Control Delay10.32.315.26.011.414.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay10.32.315.26.011.414.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)4609344491 Queue Length 95th (ft)7971612086m157 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)687727750704732725 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.360.100.500.070.300.48 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5817672513054935141336618385 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.97 Flt Protected0.991.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)184015831849158318081781 Flt Permitted0.851.000.931.000.910.90 Satd. Flow (perm)158415831730158316621626 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)6118576543215237148356919389 RTOR Reduction (vph)0041001801100200 Lane Group Flow (vph)0246350375340209003310 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)686686750686720705 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.160.02c0.220.020.13c0.20 v/c Ratio0.360.050.500.050.290.47 Uniform Delay, d111.49.912.39.811.012.1 Progression Factor0.750.571.001.001.001.08 Incremental Delay, d21.40.12.40.11.01.8 Delay (s)10.05.814.710.012.014.9 Level of ServiceBABABB Approach Delay (s)9.014.112.014.9 Approach LOSABBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay12.7HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization67.5%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)247997632762515849486100438126 v/c Ratio0.780.290.940.560.420.220.920.130.470.870.38 Control Delay54.58.654.133.45.729.557.46.845.558.112.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.05.30.0 Total Delay54.58.654.133.45.729.557.46.845.563.412.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)150025214213217216621392 Queue Length 95th (ft)22239#425#26952m49#26115m118#228m43 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)150 Base Capacity (vph)412412810495591270540650222531340 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn040000000530 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.600.240.940.560.420.210.910.130.450.920.37 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)17258927102572335445980103397117 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.001.000.951.000.910.911.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.991.001.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.961.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15851300271716601391157731541384123229501314 Flt Permitted0.961.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15851300271716601391157731541384123229501314 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)18562997632762515849486111427126 RTOR Reduction (vph)00790017600000104 Lane Group Flow (vph)02472076327675584948610043822 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermSplitpt+ovSplitPerm Protected Phases8877666 722 Permitted Phases872 Actuated Green, G (s)20.020.029.829.829.817.117.146.917.117.117.1 Effective Green, g (s)20.020.029.829.829.817.117.146.917.117.117.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.200.200.300.300.300.170.170.470.170.170.17 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)317260810495415270539649211504225 v/s Ratio Protc0.16c0.280.170.04c0.160.060.08c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm0.020.050.02 v/c Ratio0.780.080.940.560.180.210.920.130.470.870.10 Uniform Delay, d137.932.534.329.626.035.740.715.037.440.434.9 Progression Factor1.001.000.900.890.800.760.830.731.021.011.34 Incremental Delay, d211.00.118.91.40.20.319.80.17.117.30.8 Delay (s)48.932.649.627.721.027.553.511.045.158.047.5 Level of ServiceDCDCCCDBDED Approach Delay (s)44.339.445.454.1 Approach LOSDDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay44.6HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization84.1%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0117856300 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0128561200 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume391348697 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol391348697 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10098100 cM capacity (veh/h)586648895 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2 Volume Total1257640 Volume Left000 Volume Right120612 cSH64817001700 Volume to Capacity0.020.030.38 Queue Length 95th (ft)100 Control Delay (s)10.70.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)10.70.0 Approach LOSB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)229368244220297355 v/c Ratio0.441.560.630.550.210.91 Control Delay20.6296.730.727.51.252.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.6296.730.727.51.252.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)36~24090810141 Queue Length 95th (ft)70#39616514614#291 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)5182363854291472416 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.441.560.630.510.200.85 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)531243634217948201842764421076 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.000.991.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.971.000.850.97 Flt Protected0.990.951.001.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)269914131428148022241411 Flt Permitted0.570.611.000.961.000.94 Satd. Flow (perm)15529061428142222241331 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)571333936819252221982974722682 RTOR Reduction (vph)02300130001350150 Lane Group Flow (vph)020603682310022016203400 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)23.319.019.020.743.220.7 Effective Green, g (s)23.319.019.020.739.720.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.260.260.280.540.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4952363724031209377 v/s Ratio Prot0.160.07 v/s Ratio Permc0.13c0.410.15c0.26 v/c Ratio0.421.560.620.550.130.90 Uniform Delay, d119.527.023.822.28.225.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.6271.42.30.80.023.5 Delay (s)22.1298.426.123.08.248.6 Level of ServiceCFCCAD Approach Delay (s)22.1189.914.548.6 Approach LOSCFBD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay85.2HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization86.9%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)5142472872892284 v/c Ratio0.830.390.140.020.690.40 Control Delay36.640.34.336.517.56.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.08.00.0 Total Delay36.640.34.336.525.56.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)1097811125646 Queue Length 95th (ft)155m115m59m2m361m93 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9726322001851301706 Starvation Cap Reductn00003690 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.530.390.140.020.960.40 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3021972402782865275 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.941.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)258527402825141328251201 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)258527402825141328251201 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)3112032472872892284 RTOR Reduction (vph)14300000163 Lane Group Flow (vph)37102472872892121 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)18.626.267.61.242.642.6 Effective Green, g (s)18.626.267.61.242.642.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.190.260.680.010.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4817181910171203512 v/s Ratio Protc0.14c0.090.100.00c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm0.10 v/c Ratio0.770.340.150.120.740.24 Uniform Delay, d138.729.95.848.924.118.3 Progression Factor1.001.110.690.820.742.92 Incremental Delay, d26.80.10.10.62.10.5 Delay (s)45.533.34.140.519.954.1 Level of ServiceDCADBD Approach Delay (s)45.517.628.1 Approach LOSDBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay29.6HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization66.7%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)10120724138159747094265184121292 v/c Ratio0.600.550.700.980.95dl0.750.590.290.711.000.15 Control Delay55.946.221.578.944.426.358.26.667.953.69.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay55.946.221.578.944.426.358.26.667.953.69.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)686929~304197119588120~2565 Queue Length 95th (ft)121102104m#528m#339m#25010940m178#546m30 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)2375354093878226301939254811206618 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.430.390.590.980.730.750.490.290.381.000.15 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1451602397552134659335228182120091 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.871.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923150146814163010156817522675171933121541 Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923150146814163010156817522675171933121541 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)1461622417632154709435230184121292 RTOR Reduction (vph)0016900202016300058 Lane Group Flow (vph)10120772381597268941020184121234 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)12.012.012.027.327.327.37.929.214.435.735.7 Effective Green, g (s)12.012.012.027.327.327.37.929.214.435.735.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.270.270.270.080.290.140.360.36 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1673781763878224281387812481182550 v/s Ratio Protc0.070.070.05c0.270.200.17c0.050.040.11c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.600.550.410.980.95dl0.630.680.130.741.030.06 Uniform Delay, d141.841.440.736.133.031.944.826.141.032.121.1 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.131.131.371.001.001.380.841.77 Incremental Delay, d24.20.90.634.52.32.110.50.016.331.40.2 Delay (s)45.942.341.375.239.745.655.326.172.758.337.6 Level of ServiceDDDEDDECEED Approach Delay (s)42.550.933.758.8 Approach LOSDDCE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay51.2HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.8%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)422812591264316022258244433 v/c Ratio0.340.830.540.550.790.560.210.030.720.87 Control Delay44.549.414.053.146.422.312.325.945.434.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay44.549.414.053.146.422.312.325.945.434.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)27160337024112523411698 Queue Length 95th (ft)5624991#201#49215443m6m171m#180 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)18142354323054711691166342387529 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.230.660.480.550.790.510.190.020.630.82 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)411214091234184590148738239424 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.970.951.001.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.990.981.001.001.000.991.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.920.851.001.001.000.951.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1641156914421556184233353188158317921486 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1641156914421556184233353188158317921486 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)421234171264274602151748244433 RTOR Reduction (vph)050212000052000216 Lane Group Flow (vph)4223147126431060217308244217 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)5.018.318.316.429.730.430.418.918.918.9 Effective Green, g (s)5.018.318.316.429.730.430.418.918.918.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.180.180.160.300.300.300.190.190.19 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)822872642555471014969299339281 v/s Ratio Prot0.03c0.150.08c0.23c0.180.050.010.14 v/s Ratio Perm0.03c0.15 v/c Ratio0.510.810.180.490.790.590.180.030.720.77 Uniform Delay, d146.339.134.538.032.329.625.633.138.138.5 Progression Factor0.850.992.271.001.000.680.670.850.961.37 Incremental Delay, d22.113.70.10.66.82.30.40.04.58.6 Delay (s)41.652.378.538.639.122.517.428.141.161.2 Level of ServiceDDEDDCBCDE Approach Delay (s)63.239.021.153.7 Approach LOSEDCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay42.5HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization76.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)321322169281130049138633138 v/c Ratio0.810.810.340.290.110.580.290.340.820.34 Control Delay49.749.65.850.624.122.111.343.548.421.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay49.749.65.850.624.122.111.343.548.421.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)200201017097582416214 Queue Length 95th (ft)272273434618156190m42#431m84 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5265285983783615171681133771408 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.610.610.280.070.030.580.290.290.820.34 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)591131591708112824352636595 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.951.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.991.001.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.950.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715241404145313581597315315973195 Flt Permitted0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715241404145313581597315315973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)629141691809123004632838633 RTOR Reduction (vph)001250101002000 Lane Group Flow (vph)3213224402701300489038633 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitProtProtProt Protected Phases443331652 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)26.226.226.24.64.632.350.84.922.9 Effective Green, g (s)26.226.226.24.64.632.350.84.922.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.260.260.260.050.050.320.510.050.23 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3973993686762516160278732 v/s Ratio Protc0.210.21c0.020.00c0.190.150.02c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm0.03 v/c Ratio0.810.810.120.400.010.580.300.490.86 Uniform Delay, d134.634.528.146.445.528.214.346.337.1 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.580.640.841.04 Incremental Delay, d210.910.70.11.40.01.60.51.511.1 Delay (s)45.445.328.247.845.518.19.640.249.7 Level of ServiceDDCDDBADD Approach Delay (s)41.847.212.848.6 Approach LOSDDBD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay34.8HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization65.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)130 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1387 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1387 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)138 RTOR Reduction (vph)78 Lane Group Flow (vph)60 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)22.9 Effective Green, g (s)22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)318 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.04 v/c Ratio0.19 Uniform Delay, d131.1 Progression Factor1.43 Incremental Delay, d21.1 Delay (s)45.5 Level of ServiceD Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,281vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,916veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,894pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume7,079pcph11,750pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume815pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,316pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,65.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.56 Density,D20.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,518vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,715veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,067pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,413pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,65.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.60 Density,D21.7pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,387vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,681veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v6,925pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,731pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,63.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.74 Density,D27.3pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,735vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,772veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,302pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,826pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.78 Density,D29.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V5,9824055360vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,5741071410veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,4864335810pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.135 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,014lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC724lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 259 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC481lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 1,206lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.933 Averageweavingspeed,S40.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S50.5mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S48.9mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D30.6pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSD Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.73 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v7,500pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c10,040vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,073pcph11,750pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume6,933pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume433pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume573pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003003,884ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0682,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.731.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V5,8938424940vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,5512221300veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,3899005360pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.183 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,435lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,428lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 831 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC898lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,327lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.618 Averageweavingspeed,S45.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S45.3mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S45.4mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D43.1pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.95 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v7,824pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,022vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume6,938pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,310pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume900pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume528pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503004,367ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0662,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.951.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V5,9481,018788263vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,56526820769veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,4481,087854280pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.224 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,941lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,798lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 108 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC572lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,370lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S40.6mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.10 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,670pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,685vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,322pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,568pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,368pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume1,122pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803004,782ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9782,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.101.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,494vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,709veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,041pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume6,876pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume165pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,760pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,63.2mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.75 Density,D27.9pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,340vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,668veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v6,874pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,718pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,63.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.73 Density,D27.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,960vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,832veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,546pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume6,884pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume662pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,887pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,61.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.80 Density,D30.6pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,312vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,187veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,012pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume8,564pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume448pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,253pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,54.7mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.96 Density,D41.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,731vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,298veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,466pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,367pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.01 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,2491,063331200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,9082808753veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,8591,136359214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.156 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,495lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,363lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 533 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,072lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,435lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.094 Averageweavingspeed,S38.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S42.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S42.1mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.16 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v9,568pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,011vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,238pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume9,020pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,349pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume567pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303004,093ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0622,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.161.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,2511,4831,480250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,90839038966veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,8621,5841,605267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.282 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,189lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC3,151lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 927 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,213lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,364lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExisting TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.126 Averageweavingspeed,S38.5mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S28.5mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S30.7mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.43 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,318pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,697vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,494pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,497pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,852pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,848pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703005,389ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9812,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.431.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Existing With Project AM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)1468030513188228 v/c Ratio0.350.160.730.030.480.45 Control Delay20.45.832.29.820.320.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.45.832.29.820.320.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)4209904563 Queue Length 95th (ft)8626#20611m105119 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)416493420444391506 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.160.730.030.480.45 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)419675112175122811830817333 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.991.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)183515831827158318061821 Flt Permitted0.811.000.821.000.760.99 Satd. Flow (perm)151315831526158313781803 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)4410280119186133012632918435 RTOR Reduction (vph)005800901200110 Lane Group Flow (vph)014622030540176002170 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)416435420435379496 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.100.01c0.200.00c0.13c0.12 v/c Ratio0.350.050.730.010.460.44 Uniform Delay, d117.516.019.715.818.117.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.941.00 Incremental Delay, d22.30.210.50.04.02.8 Delay (s)19.816.230.215.920.920.7 Level of ServiceBBCBCC Approach Delay (s)18.529.620.920.7 Approach LOSBCCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay23.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization54.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)158395407263514 v/c Ratio0.660.460.460.490.74 Control Delay52.718.918.832.142.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay52.718.918.832.142.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)9516116574158 Queue Length 95th (ft)162281287m95202 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)265884912588778 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.600.450.450.450.66 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0014457115811211180040959 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.950.950.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.001.001.000.98 Flt Protected1.000.950.970.981.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15651633168534703349 Flt Permitted1.000.950.970.981.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15651633168534703349 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Adj. Flow (vph)0015862717411331300044965 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000120 Lane Group Flow (vph)0015839540700263005020 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplit Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)15.452.352.315.420.3 Effective Green, g (s)15.452.352.315.420.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.150.520.520.150.20 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)241854881534680 v/s Ratio Protc0.10c0.240.240.08c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.660.460.460.490.74 Uniform Delay, d139.815.015.038.737.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.811.00 Incremental Delay, d26.91.81.70.34.2 Delay (s)46.716.816.731.841.6 Level of ServiceDBBCD Approach Delay (s)46.716.831.841.6 Approach LOSDBCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay29.1HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization52.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)23216016179117 v/c Ratio0.670.870.050.150.09 Control Delay30.767.510.41.93.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay30.767.510.41.93.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)77680710 Queue Length 95th (ft)12011212m2430 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)90051181112281287 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.260.310.020.150.09 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)161285568701425666397319 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.000.850.940.97 Flt Protected1.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17861818158317461808 Flt Permitted0.970.541.000.960.98 Satd. Flow (perm)17371007158316841783 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.86 Adj. Flow (vph)1914964798116297773108522 RTOR Reduction (vph)033000130160060 Lane Group Flow (vph)01990016030163001110 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)12.712.712.750.350.3 Effective Green, g (s)12.712.712.750.350.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.180.180.180.720.72 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)31518328712101281 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.11c0.160.00c0.100.06 v/c Ratio0.630.870.010.130.09 Uniform Delay, d126.527.923.53.13.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.591.00 Incremental Delay, d23.033.10.00.20.1 Delay (s)29.560.923.52.03.1 Level of ServiceCECAA Approach Delay (s)29.557.52.03.1 Approach LOSCEAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay25.1HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization42.6%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)4010347396921 v/c Ratio0.320.240.200.460.14 Control Delay47.72.55.152.918.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay47.72.55.152.918.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)234528430 Queue Length 95th (ft)m30m531018422 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22342553696309288 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.180.240.200.220.07 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)38993673366620 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940468417191488 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940468417191488 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)401034701386921 RTOR Reduction (vph)0020019 Lane Group Flow (vph)4010347370692 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)4.884.575.77.57.5 Effective Green, g (s)4.884.575.77.57.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.840.760.080.08 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)8341743546129112 v/s Ratio Protc0.02c0.210.16c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm0.00 v/c Ratio0.480.250.210.530.01 Uniform Delay, d146.41.53.544.642.8 Progression Factor0.991.431.241.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.00.10.12.10.0 Delay (s)47.02.34.546.742.8 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)3.94.545.8 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay6.1HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization33.8%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)107016367349799 v/c Ratio0.630.150.200.400.86 Control Delay20.026.517.117.026.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.1 Total Delay20.026.517.117.026.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)140640122294 Queue Length 95th (ft)1741950234#658 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)23971382923876924 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn400002 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.120.130.400.87 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)77028916363346791 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)46511719471516411506 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)46511719471516411506 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)77829216367349799 RTOR Reduction (vph)920000120 Lane Group Flow (vph)978016367349679 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)32.02.638.653.453.4 Effective Green, g (s)32.02.638.653.453.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.030.390.530.53 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1488451820876804 v/s Ratio Protc0.21c0.010.080.21 v/s Ratio Permc0.45 v/c Ratio0.660.360.200.400.84 Uniform Delay, d129.347.920.413.819.8 Progression Factor0.770.530.861.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.21.70.20.17.8 Delay (s)24.827.117.813.927.6 Level of ServiceCCBBC Approach Delay (s)24.818.223.4 Approach LOSCBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay23.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.7%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)168127712233784667283172 v/c Ratio0.280.740.770.620.210.870.870.32 Control Delay20.924.271.031.538.728.868.030.0 Queue Delay0.00.80.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.925.071.031.538.728.868.030.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)6024979584813417937 Queue Length 95th (ft)m96228#16883m56m142#36269 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)597173716816474008743251075 Starvation Cap Reductn0197000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.280.830.730.200.210.760.870.16 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1611111115117243818129434727211055 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.911.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.981.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.991.000.961.000.921.000.95 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194854171945711586301216623176 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194854171945711586301216623176 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)1681157120122253848430636128311557 RTOR Reduction (vph)01200760019000480 Lane Group Flow (vph)1681265012226108447702831240 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtProtProtProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)34.734.79.39.523.619.320.315.4 Effective Green, g (s)34.734.79.39.523.619.320.315.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.090.100.240.190.200.15 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5961684160434374581337489 v/s Ratio Prot0.10c0.26c0.070.06c0.05c0.16c0.170.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.280.750.760.600.220.820.840.25 Uniform Delay, d123.628.844.343.430.838.738.337.2 Progression Factor0.810.780.920.831.391.111.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.12.417.36.00.00.915.90.1 Delay (s)19.124.957.942.042.743.954.237.3 Level of ServiceBCEDDDDD Approach Delay (s)24.346.243.847.8 Approach LOSCDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay35.7HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization80.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)65535942252201 v/c Ratio0.820.520.050.350.28 Control Delay25.015.35.014.919.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay25.015.35.014.919.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)2079336577 Queue Length 95th (ft)2781361410595 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)860744827725710 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.760.480.050.350.28 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)7241544662253420123612310832 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.991.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.990.991.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)18301842158317791800 Flt Permitted0.900.781.000.960.94 Satd. Flow (perm)16611447158317231708 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.81 Adj. Flow (vph)8951254812784225152752813340 RTOR Reduction (vph)050001402100120 Lane Group Flow (vph)065000359280231001890 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)33.433.433.428.628.6 Effective Green, g (s)33.433.433.428.628.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.480.480.410.41 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)793690755704698 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.390.250.02c0.130.11 v/c Ratio0.820.520.040.330.27 Uniform Delay, d115.712.79.714.113.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.36 Incremental Delay, d27.00.90.01.20.9 Delay (s)22.713.79.815.419.6 Level of ServiceCBABB Approach Delay (s)22.713.215.419.6 Approach LOSCBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay18.5HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization67.8%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)5635525232119105 v/c Ratio0.580.060.270.040.220.18 Control Delay12.44.56.01.914.310.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay12.44.56.01.914.310.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)12542902716 Queue Length 95th (ft)2071757m26045 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)978857936859540578 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.580.060.270.040.220.18 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)22508522221530455413223939 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.95 Flt Protected1.001.001.001.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185915831854158317971745 Flt Permitted0.981.000.941.000.870.94 Satd. Flow (perm)183415831754158315961654 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)23540552322932485714234141 RTOR Reduction (vph)001300150800270 Lane Group Flow (vph)056342025217011100780 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)978844935844532551 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.310.030.140.01c0.070.05 v/c Ratio0.580.050.270.020.210.14 Uniform Delay, d19.46.77.66.614.314.0 Progression Factor1.001.000.680.631.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.50.10.60.00.90.5 Delay (s)11.96.85.84.215.214.5 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)11.45.615.214.5 Approach LOSBABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay10.7HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.3%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)6974427428113312 v/c Ratio0.890.060.570.040.150.43 Control Delay27.68.218.75.38.313.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay27.68.218.75.38.313.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)11627111677 Queue Length 95th (ft)#400m151411341m147 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)786694479700752730 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.890.060.570.040.150.43 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)346144141214261559326917348 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185815831848158317751799 Flt Permitted0.971.000.591.000.950.91 Satd. Flow (perm)181415831105158316921657 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)376604444230281663347418652 RTOR Reduction (vph)009001401900120 Lane Group Flow (vph)069736027414094003000 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)786686479686733718 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.380.020.250.010.06c0.18 v/c Ratio0.890.050.570.020.130.42 Uniform Delay, d115.69.912.89.710.211.8 Progression Factor0.761.061.001.001.001.04 Incremental Delay, d213.10.14.90.10.41.6 Delay (s)24.910.617.79.810.613.8 Level of ServiceCBBABB Approach Delay (s)24.117.010.613.8 Approach LOSCBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay19.4HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization80.2%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)664212208152107703323664145 v/c Ratio1.500.440.660.800.420.871.030.930.33 Control Delay266.210.629.249.79.455.995.458.010.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay266.210.629.249.79.455.995.458.010.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)~5971940574172~25124111 Queue Length 95th (ft)#8138162#18746#228#449#361m64 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)443484326199260827314712444 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.500.440.640.760.410.851.030.930.33 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3003442062021471040468214513444141 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.910.910.911.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.981.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.850.951.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.981.000.951.001.001.000.950.981.00 Satd. Flow (prot)160713022717166013864132123227951315 Flt Permitted0.981.000.951.001.001.000.950.981.00 Satd. Flow (perm)160713022717166013864132123227951315 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)3093552122081521070482221529458145 RTOR Reduction (vph)00125009500000108 Lane Group Flow (vph)066487208152120703032366437 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermSplitPerm Protected Phases8877622 Permitted Phases872 Actuated Green, G (s)27.527.511.511.511.519.525.525.525.5 Effective Green, g (s)27.527.511.511.511.519.525.525.525.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.120.120.120.200.260.260.26 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)442358312191159806314713335 v/s Ratio Protc0.410.08c0.09c0.17c0.260.24 v/s Ratio Perm0.070.010.03 v/c Ratio1.500.240.670.800.080.871.030.930.11 Uniform Delay, d136.228.242.443.139.539.037.236.428.6 Progression Factor1.001.000.440.450.511.121.041.041.67 Incremental Delay, d2237.60.35.319.90.29.555.619.00.6 Delay (s)273.928.423.839.220.353.294.256.848.2 Level of ServiceFCCDCDFED Approach Delay (s)214.528.053.266.4 Approach LOSFCDE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay98.7HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization96.0%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)014576149600 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)015613159100 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume140911022204 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol140911022204 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10093100 cM capacity (veh/h)130206235 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2 Volume Total154091796 Volume Left000 Volume Right1501591 cSH20617001700 Volume to Capacity0.070.241.06 Queue Length 95th (ft)600 Control Delay (s)23.80.00.0 Lane LOSC Approach Delay (s)23.80.0 Approach LOSC Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)419234116144320304 v/c Ratio0.621.190.300.370.230.82 Control Delay24.1155.822.023.81.243.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.1155.822.023.81.243.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)78~13037500119 Queue Length 95th (ft)129#261799614#234 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)6711963854441481420 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.621.190.300.320.220.72 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1929576218911751292984121527 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.000.991.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.981.000.850.99 Flt Protected1.000.951.001.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)271314131444148422241449 Flt Permitted0.700.511.000.991.000.94 Satd. Flow (perm)19017541444147222241377 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)2031782234981851393204423129 RTOR Reduction (vph)028009000152050 Lane Group Flow (vph)039102341070014416802990 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)24.719.019.019.341.819.3 Effective Green, g (s)24.719.019.019.338.319.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.340.260.260.260.520.26 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6431963763891167364 v/s Ratio Prot0.070.08 v/s Ratio Permc0.21c0.310.10c0.22 v/c Ratio0.611.190.280.370.140.82 Uniform Delay, d120.127.021.621.98.925.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.2126.30.20.20.013.2 Delay (s)24.4153.321.722.18.938.4 Level of ServiceCFCCAD Approach Delay (s)24.4109.713.038.4 Approach LOSCFBD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay43.2HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)67712122123728213 v/c Ratio0.860.230.130.270.590.33 Control Delay35.731.96.362.515.31.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.10.0 Total Delay35.731.96.362.515.41.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)1533915151056 Queue Length 95th (ft)198m69m43m22m120m2 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9865631708851273655 Starvation Cap Reductn0000430 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.690.210.130.270.590.33 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)37228411721422706207 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.941.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)256926492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)256926492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)38429312122123728213 RTOR Reduction (vph)15600000121 Lane Group Flow (vph)52101212212372892 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)24.619.860.22.643.043.0 Effective Green, g (s)24.619.860.22.643.043.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.250.200.600.030.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6325251644361174499 v/s Ratio Protc0.20c0.050.080.02c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm0.08 v/c Ratio0.820.230.130.640.620.18 Uniform Delay, d135.733.78.648.222.217.6 Progression Factor1.000.910.621.260.580.27 Incremental Delay, d28.20.10.218.21.80.6 Delay (s)43.830.75.578.814.65.4 Level of ServiceDCAEBA Approach Delay (s)43.814.414.1 Approach LOSDBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay24.3HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)4924512419440523518868323080356 v/c Ratio0.290.620.430.640.610.460.760.98dr0.360.720.10 Control Delay43.448.612.143.737.914.259.519.118.426.24.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay43.448.612.143.737.914.259.519.118.426.24.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)318201461525911535952506 Queue Length 95th (ft)681195021919411118692m#244#445m15 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)2515853663678105723059726341115554 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.200.420.340.530.500.410.620.700.360.720.10 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)542371233562372331864363422879555 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.981.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.861.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.950.981.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923249146814163128156816942536166232021489 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.950.981.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923249146814163128156816942536166232021489 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)552391243602392351884364023080356 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010900176050700037 Lane Group Flow (vph)492451519440559188176023080319 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)12.112.112.121.321.321.314.711.438.134.834.8 Effective Green, g (s)12.112.112.121.321.321.314.711.438.134.834.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.210.210.210.150.110.380.350.35 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1683931783026663342492896331114518 v/s Ratio Prot0.04c0.080.01c0.140.130.04c0.110.07c0.14c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.290.620.080.640.610.180.760.98dr0.360.720.04 Uniform Delay, d140.041.839.035.935.632.240.942.222.228.421.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.980.982.321.001.000.590.640.49 Incremental Delay, d20.42.20.14.21.40.210.92.51.33.40.1 Delay (s)40.444.039.139.536.474.851.944.714.421.610.7 Level of ServiceDDDDDEDDBCB Approach Delay (s)42.147.946.219.5 Approach LOSDDDB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay37.1HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)21.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization67.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)518314288261074958506153249 v/c Ratio1.340.530.410.250.460.430.710.030.660.61 Control Delay196.428.17.750.243.721.118.448.765.724.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay196.428.17.750.243.721.118.448.765.724.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)~4461291216647196410341 Queue Length 95th (ft)#789#3108143104129153m9m142m111 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)38759870012438511481199306347487 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.340.530.410.210.280.430.710.020.440.51 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)508186404259874854893446150244 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.970.951.001.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.990.981.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.940.851.000.991.000.941.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1641162014461556182333353126153117331434 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1641162014461556182333353126153117331434 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)5181904122610074954993516153249 RTOR Reduction (vph)0201850300128000216 Lane Group Flow (vph)5182941032610404957220615333 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)23.635.735.73.015.132.032.013.313.313.3 Effective Green, g (s)23.635.735.73.015.132.032.013.313.313.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.360.360.030.150.320.320.130.130.13 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3875785164727510671000204230191 v/s Ratio Protc0.32c0.180.02c0.060.15c0.230.00c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm0.070.02 v/c Ratio1.340.510.200.550.380.460.720.030.670.17 Uniform Delay, d138.225.322.347.838.227.230.137.741.238.5 Progression Factor0.830.961.561.001.000.790.701.401.323.76 Incremental Delay, d2166.30.20.17.80.31.13.50.04.90.1 Delay (s)198.124.534.955.638.622.524.752.859.2144.7 Level of ServiceFCCEDCCDEF Approach Delay (s)107.541.923.9111.3 Approach LOSFDCF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay67.7HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.5%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)56357539125131762941336599 v/c Ratio0.730.740.460.270.140.770.280.150.660.31 Control Delay25.726.36.849.923.842.817.155.251.220.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay25.726.36.849.923.842.817.155.251.220.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)28729643150115928919 Queue Length 95th (ft)4184331074320#216139m20#22160 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)7757788473823542431053128553319 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.730.740.460.070.040.720.280.100.660.31 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1048103641706131642611212339 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.951.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.990.990.981.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.960.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715231408146713261597316215973195 Flt Permitted0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715231408146713261597316215973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)1127113911806141762811313365 RTOR Reduction (vph)001280101203000 Lane Group Flow (vph)56357526302401176291013365 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtProt Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)51.151.151.14.44.414.429.61.416.1 Effective Green, g (s)51.151.151.14.44.414.429.61.416.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.510.510.040.040.140.300.010.16 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)775778719655823093622514 v/s Ratio Prot0.37c0.38c0.02c0.110.090.01c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm0.190.00 v/c Ratio0.730.740.370.370.010.770.310.590.71 Uniform Delay, d119.019.214.746.545.741.227.349.039.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.500.611.161.10 Incremental Delay, d22.93.20.11.30.013.30.823.37.4 Delay (s)21.922.414.847.745.734.117.580.351.3 Level of ServiceCCBDDCBFD Approach Delay (s)20.347.123.756.3 Approach LOSCDCE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay28.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization64.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)92 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1381 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1381 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)99 RTOR Reduction (vph)83 Lane Group Flow (vph)16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)16.1 Effective Green, g (s)16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.16 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)222 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.07 Uniform Delay, d135.6 Progression Factor1.99 Incremental Delay, d20.6 Delay (s)71.4 Level of ServiceE Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V9,909vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,608veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v10,743pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume9,224pcph11,750pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume1,519pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,791pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.8mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.76 Density,D28.5pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,487vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,233veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,202pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,840pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.3mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.78 Density,D29.6pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,735vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,772veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,302pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,826pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.78 Density,D29.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,826vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,796veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,401pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,850pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.1mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.79 Density,D29.8pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,4732622,0140vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,703695300veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,0182802,1840pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.260 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,464lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,174lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 281 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC591lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,765lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.795 Averageweavingspeed,S32.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S38.2mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S36.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.03 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v9,482pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,968vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,206pcph11,750pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,334pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume280pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume2,152pcph2,100pcphYes LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003005,157ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9712,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.031.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,0198077160vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,5842121880veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,5268627760pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.201 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,639lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,632lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 848 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC926lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,558lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.666 Averageweavingspeed,S45.0mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S43.4mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S43.7mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D46.7pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.99 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,164pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,970vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,315pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,412pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume862pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume765pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503004,543ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0522,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.991.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,384690443148vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,68018111639veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,921737480158pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.147 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,216lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,073lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 113 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC644lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 1,718lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S46.3mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.02 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,295pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,917vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,414pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,678pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume894pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume630pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803003,998ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0382,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.021.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,611vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,266veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,336pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume7,978pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume1,358pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,334pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,52.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.99 Density,D44.3pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,340vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,932veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,958pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,990pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,60.1mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.85 Density,D33.1pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,040vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,116veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,717pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,969pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume748pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,179pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,56.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.93 Density,D38.6pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,524vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,243veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,242pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume8,712pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume530pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,310pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,53.2mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.98 Density,D43.4pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V9,020vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,374veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,780pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,445pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.04 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V8,229295511200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,1667813453veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,922315554214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.087 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 869lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC738lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 603 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,290lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,028lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.947 Averageweavingspeed,S40.7mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S46.7mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S46.1mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.18 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v10,005pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,213vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,484pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,253pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume529pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume760pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303003,413ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,1142,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.181.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V8,160895860250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,14723622666veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,847956932267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.172 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,889lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,851lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,039 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,416lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,267lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.896 Averageweavingspeed,S41.4mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S38.2mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S38.7mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.33 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,003pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,036vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,798pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,835pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,223pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,186pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703004,248ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0692,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.331.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Existing With Project PM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)11310249834250274 v/c Ratio0.590.201.130.080.630.54 Control Delay34.25.5110.511.022.322.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay34.25.5110.511.022.322.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)350~21745679 Queue Length 95th (ft)#9930#37721m117145 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)193509439449398507 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.590.201.130.080.630.54 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5061101149344343317639922340 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)182215831835158318121823 Flt Permitted0.381.000.861.000.770.99 Satd. Flow (perm)70115831597158314061806 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)5162102151347343317839922540 RTOR Reduction (vph)0074001401100100 Lane Group Flow (vph)0113280498200239002640 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)193435439435387497 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.160.02c0.310.01c0.17c0.15 v/c Ratio0.590.061.130.050.620.53 Uniform Delay, d118.816.121.816.019.018.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.831.00 Incremental Delay, d212.40.385.10.26.54.0 Delay (s)31.216.3106.816.222.222.5 Level of ServiceCBFBCC Approach Delay (s)24.1101.022.222.5 Approach LOSCFCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay55.6HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization71.5%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)163389467677431 v/c Ratio0.410.850.960.770.54 Control Delay21.938.554.419.017.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay21.938.554.419.017.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)391111408353 Queue Length 95th (ft)#107#248#302m#15178 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)3954574878741098 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.410.850.960.770.39 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0014839338513512650033458 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.950.950.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.001.001.000.98 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.971.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15651633174134653341 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.971.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15651633174134653341 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Adj. Flow (vph)0016343242313862910036764 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000320 Lane Group Flow (vph)0016338946700677003990 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplit Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)12.614.014.012.611.4 Effective Green, g (s)12.614.014.012.611.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.250.280.280.250.23 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)394457487873762 v/s Ratio Prot0.100.24c0.27c0.20c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.410.850.960.780.52 Uniform Delay, d115.617.017.717.416.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.741.00 Incremental Delay, d21.017.831.81.50.7 Delay (s)16.634.849.514.517.6 Level of ServiceBCDBB Approach Delay (s)16.642.814.517.6 Approach LOSBDBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay26.7HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization62.3%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)16842532265123 v/c Ratio0.290.780.060.270.12 Control Delay15.332.47.419.09.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay15.332.47.419.09.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)5018549422 Queue Length 95th (ft)762341617962 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)8438008319991010 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.200.530.040.270.12 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)25993013225929161646458524 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.990.981.001.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17991832158317911806 Flt Permitted0.890.831.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (perm)16051542158317681794 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Adj. Flow (vph)271083314328232171787059226 RTOR Reduction (vph)015000140120090 Lane Group Flow (vph)015300425180253001140 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)28.328.328.344.744.7 Effective Green, g (s)28.328.328.344.744.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.350.560.56 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5685455609881002 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.10c0.280.01c0.140.06 v/c Ratio0.270.780.030.260.11 Uniform Delay, d118.523.116.99.18.3 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.801.00 Incremental Delay, d20.16.40.00.50.2 Delay (s)18.629.416.916.98.5 Level of ServiceBCBBA Approach Delay (s)18.628.616.98.5 Approach LOSBCBA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay21.4HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization58.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)3650524461583 v/c Ratio0.300.120.640.130.48 Control Delay48.40.86.046.419.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay48.40.86.046.419.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)19416890 Queue Length 95th (ft)m33m10m2423046 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)15543623823138196 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.230.120.640.110.42 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)354852300481480 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940470317191474 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940470317191474 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)365052396501583 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010079 Lane Group Flow (vph)3650524450154 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)4.686.778.15.35.3 Effective Green, g (s)4.686.778.15.35.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.870.780.050.05 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)79428336739178 v/s Ratio Protc0.020.10c0.52c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm0.00 v/c Ratio0.460.120.670.160.06 Uniform Delay, d146.51.05.045.245.0 Progression Factor0.980.730.961.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.30.00.60.30.1 Delay (s)46.90.85.445.545.1 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)3.85.445.2 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay6.4HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization57.2%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)504521498875256 v/c Ratio0.310.430.761.060.30 Control Delay14.943.234.877.26.3 Queue Delay0.00.01.40.00.0 Total Delay14.943.236.177.26.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)6535322~62224 Queue Length 95th (ft)91m52367#92880 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)18851382405822845 Starvation Cap Reductn0064900 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.270.380.851.060.30 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)364135511483866253 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)46551719471516411506 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)46551719471516411506 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)368136521498875256 RTOR Reduction (vph)75000091 Lane Group Flow (vph)4290521498875165 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)32.05.941.950.150.1 Effective Green, g (s)32.05.941.950.150.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.060.420.500.50 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)14901011976822755 v/s Ratio Prot0.090.03c0.32c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm0.11 v/c Ratio0.290.510.761.060.22 Uniform Delay, d125.545.724.724.914.0 Progression Factor0.750.791.341.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.51.42.250.00.1 Delay (s)19.537.335.374.914.1 Level of ServiceBDDEB Approach Delay (s)19.535.361.2 Approach LOSBDE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay42.0HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization92.1%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)132490363114622818278611 v/c Ratio0.490.331.330.800.820.180.510.81 Control Delay59.232.8209.138.955.015.753.936.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.02.80.00.00.00.2 Total Delay59.232.8209.141.755.015.753.936.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)8584~3072451352148147 Queue Length 95th (ft)#162121#490287m#266m3092194 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)2711469272159927910062331036 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00033100080 Storage Cap Reductn00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.490.331.330.900.820.180.330.64 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1243171443418602172141086373344230 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.911.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.991.001.001.000.991.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.951.000.971.000.941.000.94 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194653171946001586312216623134 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194653171946001586312216623134 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)1323371533639152312281156778366245 RTOR Reduction (vph)08300470046001300 Lane Group Flow (vph)1324070363109902281360784810 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtProtProtProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)15.829.015.829.218.430.78.119.8 Effective Green, g (s)15.829.015.829.218.430.78.119.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.160.290.160.290.180.310.080.20 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)27213492721343292958135621 v/s Ratio Protc0.080.09c0.21c0.24c0.140.040.05c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.490.301.330.820.780.140.580.77 Uniform Delay, d138.427.642.132.938.925.144.338.0 Progression Factor1.311.561.021.130.800.871.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.50.6173.55.79.10.03.75.5 Delay (s)50.843.7216.542.940.221.948.043.5 Level of ServiceDDFDDCDD Approach Delay (s)45.284.732.144.0 Approach LOSDFCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay61.7HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.4%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)46162639389293 v/c Ratio0.670.810.050.570.41 Control Delay19.726.46.921.826.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.726.46.921.826.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)1452296142110 Queue Length 95th (ft)24036319239190 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)747842857681722 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.620.740.050.570.41 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47300689946435581751182019747 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.850.950.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)18111847158317641811 Flt Permitted0.750.841.000.910.96 Satd. Flow (perm)13721566158316131745 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90 Adj. Flow (vph)523337611051639641941312221952 RTOR Reduction (vph)01000070210090 Lane Group Flow (vph)045100626320368002840 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)39.339.339.332.732.7 Effective Green, g (s)39.339.339.332.732.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.490.490.490.410.41 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)674769778659713 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.33c0.400.02c0.230.16 v/c Ratio0.670.810.040.560.40 Uniform Delay, d115.417.310.618.116.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.39 Incremental Delay, d22.86.90.03.41.6 Delay (s)18.224.210.621.524.7 Level of ServiceBCBCC Approach Delay (s)18.223.421.524.7 Approach LOSBCCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay21.9HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization96.4%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)4007862257178201 v/c Ratio0.450.090.650.070.310.37 Control Delay10.63.58.54.313.215.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay10.63.58.54.313.215.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)8048933646 Queue Length 95th (ft)13919m99m47894 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)895870953856573545 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.090.650.070.310.37 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)44336743955254348352559145 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.991.001.001.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185215831857158317671778 Flt Permitted0.901.000.961.000.920.88 Satd. Flow (perm)167815831786158316381582 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)46354784158157368755589647 RTOR Reduction (vph)0026001202700180 Lane Group Flow (vph)0400520622450151001830 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)895844953844546527 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.240.03c0.350.030.09c0.12 v/c Ratio0.450.060.650.050.280.35 Uniform Delay, d18.66.810.06.714.715.1 Progression Factor1.001.000.660.941.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.60.11.50.11.31.8 Delay (s)10.26.98.16.415.916.9 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)9.78.015.916.9 Approach LOSAABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay10.6HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization77.7%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)3947673562240389 v/c Ratio1.150.110.980.090.330.54 Control Delay111.44.348.97.911.714.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay111.44.348.97.911.714.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)~177124984999 Queue Length 95th (ft)#30815#4652794m162 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)344711749697733714 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.150.110.980.090.330.54 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)6630972676315935154397719598 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.96 Flt Protected0.991.001.001.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)184715831854158318061778 Flt Permitted0.431.000.931.000.910.89 Satd. Flow (perm)79315831729158316611598 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)69325767166462371624181205103 RTOR Reduction (vph)0026001101200220 Lane Group Flow (vph)0394510735510228003670 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)344686749686720692 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.500.030.430.030.14c0.23 v/c Ratio1.150.070.980.070.320.53 Uniform Delay, d117.010.016.810.011.212.5 Progression Factor0.690.721.001.001.001.02 Incremental Delay, d292.40.228.60.21.22.2 Delay (s)104.17.345.410.212.315.0 Level of ServiceFADBBB Approach Delay (s)88.442.712.315.0 Approach LOSFDBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay44.5HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization97.4%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)434167876529275804155490174 v/c Ratio1.050.441.401.380.521.090.700.930.46 Control Delay95.724.4222.3219.810.493.254.363.311.3 Queue Delay0.00.10.00.00.00.00.0234.10.0 Total Delay95.724.5222.3219.810.493.254.3297.511.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)~30357~393~45933~213981566 Queue Length 95th (ft)#493122#515#66368#284m143m#246m26 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)413380625382525736222530379 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn07000002100 Storage Cap Reductn000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.050.451.401.380.521.090.701.530.46 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)272132155815492256066087160440162 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.910.910.911.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.991.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.850.981.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.971.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)159113022717166013904288123229441314 Flt Permitted0.971.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)159113022717166013904288123229441314 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)292142167876529275071094172473174 RTOR Reduction (vph)00410020600000143 Lane Group Flow (vph)0434126876529690804015549031 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermSplitPerm Protected Phases8877622 Permitted Phases872 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.023.023.023.017.217.817.817.8 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.023.023.023.017.217.817.817.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.260.260.230.230.230.170.180.180.18 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)414339625382320738219524234 v/s Ratio Protc0.27c0.320.32c0.190.13c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm0.100.050.02 v/c Ratio1.050.371.401.380.221.090.710.940.13 Uniform Delay, d137.030.338.538.531.241.438.740.534.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.121.111.540.781.000.991.35 Incremental Delay, d257.40.5188.2185.40.359.314.522.60.9 Delay (s)94.430.8231.2228.348.391.753.262.747.5 Level of ServiceFCFFDFDED Approach Delay (s)76.8200.391.757.7 Approach LOSEFFE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay129.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization97.0%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0117874900 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0128581400 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume492449899 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol492449899 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10098100 cM capacity (veh/h)506557751 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2 Volume Total1257842 Volume Left000 Volume Right120814 cSH55717001700 Volume to Capacity0.020.030.50 Queue Length 95th (ft)200 Control Delay (s)11.60.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)11.60.0 Approach LOSB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)285370282229299385 v/c Ratio0.581.660.730.550.200.96 Control Delay24.8340.136.327.21.263.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.8340.136.327.21.263.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)50~248108860161 Queue Length 95th (ft)91#404#22015314#331 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)4902233854251472405 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.581.660.730.540.200.95 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)551674334420558221912786021880 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.000.991.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.971.000.850.97 Flt Protected0.990.951.000.991.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)270914131426147922241411 Flt Permitted0.560.581.000.951.000.91 Satd. Flow (perm)15338581426141222241298 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)591804637022062242052996523486 RTOR Reduction (vph)02200140001320140 Lane Group Flow (vph)026303702680022916703710 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)22.319.019.021.744.221.7 Effective Green, g (s)22.319.019.021.740.721.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.310.260.260.300.560.30 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4682233714201240386 v/s Ratio Prot0.190.07 v/s Ratio Permc0.17c0.430.16c0.29 v/c Ratio0.561.660.720.550.130.96 Uniform Delay, d121.327.024.621.57.725.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.8315.75.80.80.035.4 Delay (s)26.1342.730.422.37.760.6 Level of ServiceCFCCAE Approach Delay (s)26.1207.614.160.6 Approach LOSCFBE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay93.8HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization89.1%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)59927941521089304 v/c Ratio0.840.650.220.020.800.42 Control Delay35.649.75.634.021.26.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.062.30.5 Total Delay35.649.75.634.083.67.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)1289416139572 Queue Length 95th (ft)174m#127m73m2m340m63 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9844271858821363732 Starvation Cap Reductn0000401143 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.610.650.220.021.130.52 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)33125027140321056295 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.941.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)257026492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)257026492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)34125827941521089304 RTOR Reduction (vph)16000000162 Lane Group Flow (vph)439027941521089142 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)21.419.364.81.246.746.7 Effective Green, g (s)21.419.364.81.246.746.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.210.190.650.010.470.47 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5505111770161275542 v/s Ratio Protc0.17c0.110.150.00c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm0.12 v/c Ratio0.800.550.230.120.850.26 Uniform Delay, d137.236.47.348.923.616.2 Progression Factor1.001.090.720.760.973.56 Incremental Delay, d27.40.30.10.10.70.1 Delay (s)44.640.15.437.323.757.8 Level of ServiceDDADCE Approach Delay (s)44.619.331.1 Approach LOSDBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay31.1HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.5%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)10922725758386362394377201143796 v/c Ratio0.630.570.741.531.47dl1.030.600.400.731.230.16 Control Delay56.746.525.9273.678.347.059.66.164.0140.813.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay56.746.525.9273.678.347.059.66.164.0140.813.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)737642~605~364~269588130~58613 Queue Length 95th (ft)129111124m#552m#332m#20811046m175#729m36 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)2375384053808016071869434651166593 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.460.420.631.531.081.030.510.400.431.230.16 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14918325411542776179335339199142395 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.981.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.861.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923166146814162992156816942558166232021490 Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.950.971.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923166146814162992156816942558166232021490 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)15118525711662806239435342201143796 RTOR Reduction (vph)0016400187024700051 Lane Group Flow (vph)10922793583863436941300201143745 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)12.512.512.526.826.826.88.027.915.735.635.6 Effective Green, g (s)12.512.512.526.826.826.88.027.915.735.635.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.270.270.270.080.280.160.360.36 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1743961843798024201367142611140530 v/s Ratio Protc0.080.070.06c0.410.290.28c0.060.050.12c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm0.03 v/c Ratio0.630.570.511.541.47dl1.040.690.180.771.260.09 Uniform Delay, d141.541.240.936.636.636.644.827.440.432.221.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.131.131.281.001.001.310.991.83 Incremental Delay, d25.01.20.8243.436.924.811.50.016.2123.10.3 Delay (s)46.542.541.7284.978.471.556.327.469.0155.039.4 Level of ServiceDDDFEEECEFD Approach Delay (s)42.9134.533.2138.6 Approach LOSDFCF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay115.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization97.9%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 dl Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)1952812591264316842878322979 v/c Ratio1.080.830.540.591.110.790.330.020.711.75 Control Delay129.752.613.656.7118.329.315.328.541.5362.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay129.752.613.656.7118.329.315.328.541.5362.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)~1441582777~317138314172~828 Queue Length 95th (ft)#27824881#201#505184m58m9m#289m#928 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)18142354321238710671071399452561 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.080.660.480.591.110.640.270.020.711.75 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1911214091234184670209738316959 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.970.951.001.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.990.981.001.001.000.991.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.920.851.001.001.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1641156914421556184233353241153117331438 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1641156914421556184233353241153117331438 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)1951234171264274684213748322979 RTOR Reduction (vph)050212000038000186 Lane Group Flow (vph)19523147126431068424908322793 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)11.018.318.313.721.025.925.926.126.126.1 Effective Green, g (s)11.018.318.313.721.025.925.926.126.126.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.110.180.180.140.210.260.260.260.260.26 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)181287264213387864839400452375 v/s Ratio Protc0.120.150.08c0.23c0.210.080.010.19 v/s Ratio Perm0.03c0.55 v/c Ratio1.080.810.180.591.110.790.300.020.712.11 Uniform Delay, d144.539.134.540.539.534.529.727.433.537.0 Progression Factor0.981.112.201.001.000.680.620.920.920.92 Incremental Delay, d286.513.40.12.980.26.10.70.03.6508.7 Delay (s)130.156.776.143.4119.729.719.125.134.6542.6 Level of ServiceFEEDFCBCCF Approach Delay (s)83.0102.526.6414.4 Approach LOSFFCF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay192.2HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization111.4%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)397396169281130049138633220 v/c Ratio0.840.830.310.290.110.590.320.341.000.55 Control Delay47.546.95.250.624.123.814.646.578.525.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay47.546.95.250.624.123.814.646.578.525.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)2452432170956422~22636 Queue Length 95th (ft)329326424618#276201m44#428m#133 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5425456083783615061523133632400 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.730.730.280.070.030.590.320.291.000.55 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)732131591708112824352636595 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.951.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.991.001.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.950.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715241405145313581597315315973195 Flt Permitted0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715241405145313581597315315973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)779141691809123004632838633 RTOR Reduction (vph)001130101003000 Lane Group Flow (vph)3973965602701300488038633 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitProtProtProt Protected Phases443331652 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)31.231.231.24.64.631.745.84.918.5 Effective Green, g (s)31.231.231.24.64.631.745.84.918.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.310.310.310.050.050.320.460.050.18 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4734754386762506144478591 v/s Ratio Protc0.260.26c0.020.00c0.190.150.02c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm0.04 v/c Ratio0.840.830.130.400.010.590.340.491.07 Uniform Delay, d132.132.024.746.445.528.717.446.340.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.600.690.911.10 Incremental Delay, d211.911.40.01.40.01.80.61.453.9 Delay (s)43.943.424.747.845.519.112.743.598.8 Level of ServiceDDCDDBBDF Approach Delay (s)40.347.215.187.0 Approach LOSDDBF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay48.5HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization69.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)207 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1383 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1383 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)220 RTOR Reduction (vph)130 Lane Group Flow (vph)90 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)18.5 Effective Green, g (s)18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.18 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)256 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.06 v/c Ratio0.35 Uniform Delay, d135.5 Progression Factor1.62 Incremental Delay, d23.0 Delay (s)60.6 Level of ServiceE Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,102vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,869veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,700pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume6,734pcph11,750pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume966pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,283pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,65.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.55 Density,D19.7pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,198vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,631veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v6,720pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,344pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,65.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.57 Density,D20.7pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V5,958vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,568veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v6,460pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,615pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,64.3mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.69 Density,D25.1pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,735vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,772veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,302pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,826pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,62.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.78 Density,D29.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V5,4764827220vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,4411271900veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v5,9375157830pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.179 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,298lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,008lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 237 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC368lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 1,377lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.035 Averageweavingspeed,S39.6mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S48.7mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S46.8mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D30.9pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSD Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.71 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v7,235pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c9,875vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume6,728pcph11,750pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume6,471pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume515pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume771pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003004,326ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0342,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.711.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V5,4641,2714940vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,4383341300veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v5,9241,3585360pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.242 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,894lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,887lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 770 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC802lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,689lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.693 Averageweavingspeed,S44.5mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S42.0mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S42.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D45.9pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.97 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v7,818pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,842vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume6,480pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,310pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,358pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume528pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503004,972ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0192,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.971.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V5,9481,018788263vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,56526820769veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,4481,087854280pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.224 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,941lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,798lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 108 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC572lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,370lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S40.6mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.10 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,670pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,685vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,322pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,568pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,368pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume1,122pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803004,782ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9782,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.101.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,504vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,712veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,052pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume6,876pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume175pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,763pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,63.1mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.75 Density,D27.9pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,340vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,668veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v6,874pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,718pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,63.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.73 Density,D27.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,960vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,832veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,546pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume6,884pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume662pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,887pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,61.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.80 Density,D30.6pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,169vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,150veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,857pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume8,291pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume566pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,214pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,55.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.94 Density,D39.8pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,699vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,289veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,432pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,358pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.00 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,1061,063474200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,87028012553veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,7041,136514214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.172 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,650lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,518lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 523 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,040lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,558lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.137 Averageweavingspeed,S38.4mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S41.6mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S41.0mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.17 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v9,568pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,962vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,238pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume8,868pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,349pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume720pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303004,256ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0502,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.171.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,2192,1201,480250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,90055838966veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,8272,2651,605267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.323 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,870lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC3,832lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 923 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,206lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 5,038lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeExistingPlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.261 Averageweavingspeed,S37.1mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S22.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S26.0mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.61 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,964pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,206vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,469pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume10,153pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume2,532pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,848pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703005,837ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9472,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.611.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Existing With Project Mitigated Queues 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)1468030513188228 v/c Ratio0.350.160.730.030.480.45 Control Delay20.45.832.30.120.320.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.45.832.30.120.320.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)4209904563 Queue Length 95th (ft)8626#2060m105119 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)416493419488391506 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.160.730.030.480.45 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)419675112175122811830817333 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.991.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)183515831827158318061821 Flt Permitted0.811.000.821.000.760.99 Satd. Flow (perm)151315831526158313781803 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)4410280119186133012632918435 RTOR Reduction (vph)005800901200110 Lane Group Flow (vph)014622030540176002170 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)416435419435378495 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.100.01c0.200.00c0.13c0.12 v/c Ratio0.350.050.730.010.460.44 Uniform Delay, d117.516.019.715.818.117.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.941.00 Incremental Delay, d22.30.210.60.04.02.8 Delay (s)19.816.230.315.821.020.7 Level of ServiceBBCBCC Approach Delay (s)18.529.721.020.7 Approach LOSBCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay23.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization54.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)158395407263514 v/c Ratio0.660.460.460.490.74 Control Delay52.818.918.849.643.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay52.818.918.849.643.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)9516116594158 Queue Length 95th (ft)162281287m113202 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)265883912588777 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.600.450.450.450.66 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0014457115811211180040959 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.950.950.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.001.001.000.98 Flt Protected1.000.950.970.981.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15651633168534703349 Flt Permitted1.000.950.970.981.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15651633168534703349 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Adj. Flow (vph)0015862717411331300044965 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000120 Lane Group Flow (vph)0015839540700263005020 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitNASplitNANA Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)15.452.352.315.420.3 Effective Green, g (s)15.452.352.315.420.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.150.520.520.150.20 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)241854881534679 v/s Ratio Protc0.10c0.240.240.08c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.660.460.460.490.74 Uniform Delay, d139.815.015.038.737.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.241.00 Incremental Delay, d26.91.81.70.64.2 Delay (s)46.716.816.748.741.6 Level of ServiceDBBDD Approach Delay (s)46.716.848.741.6 Approach LOSDBDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay31.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization52.2%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)23216016179117 v/c Ratio0.670.880.050.150.09 Control Delay30.867.710.41.93.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay30.867.710.41.93.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)77680710 Queue Length 95th (ft)12011212m2430 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)90051181012271287 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.260.310.020.150.09 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)161285568701425666397319 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.000.850.940.97 Flt Protected1.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17861818158317461808 Flt Permitted0.970.541.000.960.98 Satd. Flow (perm)17371007158316841783 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.860.86 Adj. Flow (vph)1914964798116297773108522 RTOR Reduction (vph)033000130160060 Lane Group Flow (vph)01990016030163001110 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)12.712.712.750.350.3 Effective Green, g (s)12.712.712.750.350.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.180.180.180.720.72 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)31518228712101281 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.11c0.160.00c0.100.06 v/c Ratio0.630.880.010.130.09 Uniform Delay, d126.527.923.53.13.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.591.00 Incremental Delay, d23.033.90.00.20.1 Delay (s)29.561.823.52.03.1 Level of ServiceCECAA Approach Delay (s)29.558.32.03.1 Approach LOSCEAA Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay25.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization42.6%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)4010347396921 v/c Ratio0.320.240.200.470.14 Control Delay42.71.45.153.018.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay42.71.45.153.018.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)253028430 Queue Length 95th (ft)m35m301018422 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22342553696309288 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.180.240.200.220.07 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)38993673366620 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940468417191488 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940468417191488 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)401034701386921 RTOR Reduction (vph)0020019 Lane Group Flow (vph)4010347370692 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtNANANAPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)4.884.575.77.57.5 Effective Green, g (s)4.884.575.77.57.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.840.760.080.08 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)8241743545128111 v/s Ratio Protc0.02c0.210.16c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm0.00 v/c Ratio0.490.250.210.540.01 Uniform Delay, d146.41.53.544.642.8 Progression Factor0.860.781.241.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.20.10.12.20.0 Delay (s)41.21.34.546.842.8 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)2.84.545.9 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay5.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceA HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization33.8%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)107016367349799 v/c Ratio0.630.150.200.400.87 Control Delay27.026.717.317.026.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay27.026.717.317.026.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)178640122294 Queue Length 95th (ft)2121950234#658 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)23971372923875923 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn230001 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.120.130.400.87 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)77028916363346791 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)46511719471516411506 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)46511719471516411506 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)77829216367349799 RTOR Reduction (vph)920000120 Lane Group Flow (vph)978016367349679 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeNAProtNANAPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)32.02.638.653.453.4 Effective Green, g (s)32.02.638.653.453.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.030.390.530.53 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1488441819876804 v/s Ratio Protc0.21c0.010.080.21 v/s Ratio Permc0.45 v/c Ratio0.660.360.200.400.84 Uniform Delay, d129.347.920.413.819.8 Progression Factor1.060.530.871.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.21.80.20.17.8 Delay (s)33.327.418.113.927.6 Level of ServiceCCBBC Approach Delay (s)33.318.523.4 Approach LOSCBC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay26.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.7%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)168127712233784667283172 v/c Ratio0.280.740.770.620.210.870.870.32 Control Delay20.724.270.531.935.426.568.030.0 Queue Delay0.00.80.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.725.070.531.935.426.568.030.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)6025080595014017937 Queue Length 95th (ft)m93222#16986m53m138#36269 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)596173416816463998743251076 Starvation Cap Reductn0198000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.280.830.730.200.210.760.870.16 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1611111115117243818129434727211055 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.911.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.981.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.991.000.961.000.921.000.95 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194854171945711586301216623176 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194854171945711586301216623176 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)1681157120122253848430636128311557 RTOR Reduction (vph)01200760019000480 Lane Group Flow (vph)1681265012226108447702831240 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtNAProtNAProtNAProtNA Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)34.834.69.39.323.619.320.415.5 Effective Green, g (s)34.834.69.39.323.619.320.415.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.090.090.240.190.200.16 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5981679159425374581339492 v/s Ratio Prot0.10c0.26c0.070.06c0.05c0.16c0.170.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.280.750.770.610.220.820.830.25 Uniform Delay, d123.628.944.343.630.838.738.237.2 Progression Factor0.800.780.910.841.250.851.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.12.417.76.40.03.615.40.1 Delay (s)18.925.057.943.038.636.653.637.2 Level of ServiceBCEDDDDD Approach Delay (s)24.347.036.847.4 Approach LOSCDDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay34.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization80.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)65535942252201 v/c Ratio0.820.520.050.350.28 Control Delay25.115.35.014.919.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay25.115.35.014.919.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)2079336577 Queue Length 95th (ft)2781361410595 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)859744827725709 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.760.480.050.350.28 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)7241544662253420123612310832 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.991.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.990.991.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)18301842158317791800 Flt Permitted0.900.781.000.960.94 Satd. Flow (perm)16611447158317231708 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.810.81 Adj. Flow (vph)8951254812784225152752813340 RTOR Reduction (vph)050001402100120 Lane Group Flow (vph)065000359280231001890 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)33.433.433.428.628.6 Effective Green, g (s)33.433.433.428.628.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.480.480.410.41 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)792690755703697 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.390.250.02c0.130.11 v/c Ratio0.820.520.040.330.27 Uniform Delay, d115.712.79.714.113.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.36 Incremental Delay, d27.10.90.01.30.9 Delay (s)22.913.79.815.419.7 Level of ServiceCBABB Approach Delay (s)22.913.215.419.7 Approach LOSCBBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay18.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization67.8%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)5635525232119105 v/c Ratio0.580.060.270.040.220.18 Control Delay12.44.56.01.914.310.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay12.44.56.01.914.310.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)12542902716 Queue Length 95th (ft)2071757m26045 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)977857936859539578 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.580.060.270.040.220.18 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)22508522221530455413223939 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.95 Flt Protected1.001.001.001.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185915831854158317971745 Flt Permitted0.981.000.941.000.870.94 Satd. Flow (perm)183415831754158315961654 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)23540552322932485714234141 RTOR Reduction (vph)001300150800270 Lane Group Flow (vph)056342025217011100780 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)978844935844532551 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.310.030.140.01c0.070.05 v/c Ratio0.580.050.270.020.210.14 Uniform Delay, d19.46.77.66.614.314.0 Progression Factor1.001.000.680.641.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.50.10.60.00.90.5 Delay (s)11.96.85.84.315.214.5 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)11.45.615.214.5 Approach LOSBABB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay10.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.3%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)6974427428113312 v/c Ratio0.890.060.570.040.150.43 Control Delay27.67.918.75.38.313.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay27.67.918.75.38.313.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)11627111677 Queue Length 95th (ft)#400m141411341m147 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)786696478699752729 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.890.060.570.040.150.43 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)346144141214261559326917348 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185815831848158317751799 Flt Permitted0.971.000.591.000.950.91 Satd. Flow (perm)181415831105158316921657 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)376604444230281663347418652 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010001401900120 Lane Group Flow (vph)069734027414094003000 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)786685478685733718 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.380.020.250.010.06c0.18 v/c Ratio0.890.050.570.020.130.42 Uniform Delay, d115.69.812.89.710.211.8 Progression Factor0.761.081.001.001.001.04 Incremental Delay, d213.10.14.90.10.41.6 Delay (s)25.010.817.79.810.613.8 Level of ServiceCBBABB Approach Delay (s)24.117.010.613.8 Approach LOSCBBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay19.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization80.2%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)309567208152107703323664145 v/c Ratio0.861.090.960.510.290.951.050.950.21 Control Delay59.798.197.055.816.859.398.758.55.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay59.798.197.055.816.859.398.758.55.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)185~39663828165~24323611 Queue Length 95th (ft)#308#606#14613674#249#449#360m34 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)406520217298365743308699695 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.761.090.960.510.290.951.050.950.21 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3003442062021471040468214513444141 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.910.910.911.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.000.981.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.941.001.000.850.951.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.001.001.000.950.981.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156215132717166013894132123227951316 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.001.001.000.950.561.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156215132717166013894132123215861316 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)3093552122081521070482221529458145 RTOR Reduction (vph)021000880000077 Lane Group Flow (vph)3095460208152190703032366468 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeProtNAProtNAPermNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases3874652 Permitted Phases42 Actuated Green, G (s)23.033.08.018.018.018.025.047.047.0 Effective Green, g (s)23.033.08.018.018.018.025.047.047.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.230.330.080.180.180.180.250.470.47 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3594992172982507433081047618 v/s Ratio Protc0.20c0.360.080.09c0.17c0.260.16 v/s Ratio Perm0.010.140.05 v/c Ratio0.861.090.960.510.080.951.050.630.11 Uniform Delay, d137.033.545.837.034.140.537.520.014.8 Progression Factor1.001.000.971.274.680.920.960.951.81 Incremental Delay, d218.468.148.51.50.119.661.90.80.3 Delay (s)55.4101.692.848.5159.956.897.719.927.2 Level of ServiceEFFDFEFBC Approach Delay (s)85.393.856.843.1 Approach LOSFFED Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay65.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization90.7%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 11: 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy./Industrial Wy. & E. Grand Ave. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)014576149600 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)015613159100 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume140911022204 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol140911022204 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10093100 cM capacity (veh/h)130206235 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2 Volume Total154091796 Volume Left000 Volume Right1501591 cSH20617001700 Volume to Capacity0.070.241.06 Queue Length 95th (ft)600 Control Delay (s)23.80.00.0 Lane LOSC Approach Delay (s)23.80.0 Approach LOSC Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.2%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)419234116144320304 v/c Ratio0.621.190.300.370.230.83 Control Delay24.1155.822.023.91.243.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.1155.822.023.91.243.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)78~13037500119 Queue Length 95th (ft)129#261799614#234 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)6711963844431480419 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.621.190.300.330.220.73 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1929576218911751292984121527 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.000.991.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.981.000.850.99 Flt Protected1.000.951.001.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)271314131444148422241449 Flt Permitted0.700.511.000.991.000.94 Satd. Flow (perm)19017541444147222241377 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)2031782234981851393204423129 RTOR Reduction (vph)028009000152050 Lane Group Flow (vph)039102341070014416802990 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermNAcustomPermNA Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)24.719.019.019.341.819.3 Effective Green, g (s)24.719.019.019.338.319.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.340.260.260.260.520.26 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6431963753891166364 v/s Ratio Prot0.070.08 v/s Ratio Permc0.21c0.310.10c0.22 v/c Ratio0.611.190.290.370.140.82 Uniform Delay, d120.127.021.621.98.925.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.2126.30.20.20.013.2 Delay (s)24.4153.321.722.18.938.4 Level of ServiceCFCCAD Approach Delay (s)24.4109.713.038.4 Approach LOSCFBD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay43.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)67712122123728213 v/c Ratio0.860.230.130.270.590.33 Control Delay35.829.04.849.224.06.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.20.0 Total Delay35.829.04.849.224.26.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)153399142137 Queue Length 95th (ft)198m69m36m15m271m9 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9865631708851273654 Starvation Cap Reductn0000990 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.690.210.130.270.620.33 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)37228411721422706207 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.941.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)256926492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)256926492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)38429312122123728213 RTOR Reduction (vph)15600000121 Lane Group Flow (vph)52101212212372892 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeNAProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)24.619.860.22.643.043.0 Effective Green, g (s)24.619.860.22.643.043.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.250.200.600.030.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6315241644351174499 v/s Ratio Protc0.20c0.050.080.02c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm0.08 v/c Ratio0.830.230.130.660.620.18 Uniform Delay, d135.733.78.648.322.217.6 Progression Factor1.000.820.471.010.971.88 Incremental Delay, d28.30.10.213.31.00.3 Delay (s)43.927.84.262.222.633.5 Level of ServiceDCAECC Approach Delay (s)43.912.625.9 Approach LOSDBC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay29.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)4924512419440523518868323080356 v/c Ratio0.290.620.430.640.610.460.760.98dr0.360.720.10 Control Delay43.448.712.137.631.713.159.819.119.528.41.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay43.448.712.137.631.713.159.819.119.528.41.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)318201401467111535952853 Queue Length 95th (ft)681195022019413218692m#251#460m8 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)2505853653668105723049726331115585 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.200.420.340.530.500.410.620.700.360.720.10 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)542371233562372331864363422879555 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.910.911.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.981.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.861.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.950.981.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923249146814163128156816942536166232021489 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.950.981.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923249146814163128156816942536166232021489 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)552391243602392351884364023080356 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010900176050700037 Lane Group Flow (vph)492451519440559188176023080319 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitNAProtSplitNAProtProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)12.112.112.121.321.321.314.711.438.134.834.8 Effective Green, g (s)12.112.112.121.321.321.314.711.438.134.834.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.120.120.210.210.210.150.110.380.350.35 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1683931773016663332492896331114518 v/s Ratio Prot0.04c0.080.01c0.140.130.04c0.110.07c0.14c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.290.620.080.640.610.180.760.98dr0.360.720.04 Uniform Delay, d140.041.839.035.935.632.240.942.222.228.421.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.820.812.121.001.000.630.731.46 Incremental Delay, d20.42.20.14.11.40.210.92.51.33.40.1 Delay (s)40.444.039.133.430.268.451.944.715.324.131.5 Level of ServiceDDDCCEDDBCC Approach Delay (s)42.141.746.222.6 Approach LOSDDDC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay36.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization67.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)518314288261074958506153249 v/c Ratio0.990.470.390.200.570.520.840.030.670.61 Control Delay72.125.17.345.652.623.826.451.069.325.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay72.125.17.345.652.623.826.451.069.325.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)34714824166483138410443 Queue Length 95th (ft)#6282848142113171#360m10m144m71 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)5217277921283489591013290329474 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.990.430.360.200.310.520.840.020.470.53 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)508186404259874854893446150244 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.970.951.001.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.990.981.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.940.851.000.991.000.941.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1641162014471556182333353126153117331434 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1641162014471556182333353126153117331434 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)5181904122610074954993516153249 RTOR Reduction (vph)0241740300118000216 Lane Group Flow (vph)5182901142610404957320615333 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNASplitNASplitNAPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)31.839.739.74.612.526.526.513.213.213.2 Effective Green, g (s)31.839.739.74.612.526.526.513.213.213.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.400.400.050.120.260.260.130.130.13 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)52164357471227883828202228189 v/s Ratio Protc0.32c0.180.02c0.060.15c0.230.00c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm0.080.02 v/c Ratio0.990.450.200.370.460.560.880.030.670.17 Uniform Delay, d134.022.219.746.340.631.735.337.841.338.6 Progression Factor1.031.051.801.001.000.720.671.461.393.85 Incremental Delay, d234.30.20.11.20.52.010.70.05.40.1 Delay (s)69.323.535.647.541.224.934.255.262.9148.5 Level of ServiceECDDDCCEEF Approach Delay (s)47.842.430.8115.0 Approach LOSDDCF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay49.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.5%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)56357539125131762941336599 v/c Ratio0.720.730.460.140.070.720.270.150.640.30 Control Delay25.025.56.51.60.838.015.754.054.119.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay25.025.56.51.60.838.015.754.054.119.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)291302440011350811013 Queue Length 95th (ft)3773919500#216138m22#22154 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)7807838504704332561094127568333 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.720.730.460.050.030.690.270.100.640.30 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1048103641706131642611212339 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.951.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.990.990.981.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.960.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715231408146713261597316215973195 Flt Permitted0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715231408146713261597316215973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)1127113911806141762811313365 RTOR Reduction (vph)0012702401303000 Lane Group Flow (vph)5635752640100176291013365 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAProtNA Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)51.551.551.52.72.715.330.91.416.5 Effective Green, g (s)51.551.551.52.72.715.330.91.416.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.520.520.520.030.030.150.310.010.16 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)781784725393524497722527 v/s Ratio Prot0.37c0.38c0.00c0.110.090.01c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm0.190.00 v/c Ratio0.720.730.360.020.010.720.300.590.69 Uniform Delay, d118.718.914.547.447.340.326.349.039.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.490.591.131.22 Incremental Delay, d22.83.10.10.10.09.50.723.76.9 Delay (s)21.522.014.647.447.429.416.179.154.8 Level of ServiceCCBDDCBED Approach Delay (s)19.947.421.161.0 Approach LOSBDCE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay28.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization64.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)92 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1381 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1381 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)99 RTOR Reduction (vph)83 Lane Group Flow (vph)16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)16.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.16 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)227 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.07 Uniform Delay, d135.3 Progression Factor2.29 Incremental Delay, d20.6 Delay (s)81.3 Level of ServiceF Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 Queues 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)11310249834250274 v/c Ratio0.360.170.960.060.690.59 Control Delay19.54.753.61.627.925.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.54.753.61.627.925.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)31017308782 Queue Length 95th (ft)6927#3456#176151 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)317583521563364461 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.360.170.960.060.690.59 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5061101149344343317639922340 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)182215831835158318121823 Flt Permitted0.521.000.861.000.770.99 Satd. Flow (perm)97515831606158314121805 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)5162102151347343317839922540 RTOR Reduction (vph)0069002301100110 Lane Group Flow (vph)0113330498110239002640 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)19.519.519.519.515.015.0 Effective Green, g (s)19.519.519.519.515.015.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.320.320.320.250.25 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)316514521514353451 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.120.02c0.310.01c0.17c0.15 v/c Ratio0.360.060.960.020.680.58 Uniform Delay, d115.514.019.813.820.319.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.851.00 Incremental Delay, d23.10.229.90.19.65.5 Delay (s)18.614.249.713.826.825.2 Level of ServiceBBDBCC Approach Delay (s)16.547.426.825.2 Approach LOSBDCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay33.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization71.5%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)163389467677431 v/c Ratio0.410.850.960.770.54 Control Delay21.938.554.433.617.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay21.938.554.433.617.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)3911114020053 Queue Length 95th (ft)#107#248#302m#25178 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)3954574878741098 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.410.850.960.770.39 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0014839338513512650033458 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.950.950.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.001.001.000.98 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.971.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15651633174134653341 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.971.00 Satd. Flow (perm)15651633174134653341 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.910.91 Adj. Flow (vph)0016343242313862910036764 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000320 Lane Group Flow (vph)0016338946700677003990 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitNASplitNANA Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)12.614.014.012.611.4 Effective Green, g (s)12.614.014.012.611.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.250.280.280.250.23 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)394457487873761 v/s Ratio Prot0.100.24c0.27c0.20c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio0.410.850.960.780.52 Uniform Delay, d115.617.017.717.416.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.611.00 Incremental Delay, d21.017.831.82.00.7 Delay (s)16.634.849.530.017.6 Level of ServiceBCDCB Approach Delay (s)16.642.830.017.6 Approach LOSBDCB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay31.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization62.3%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)16842532265123 v/c Ratio0.290.780.060.270.12 Control Delay15.332.47.419.19.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay15.332.47.419.19.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)5018549422 Queue Length 95th (ft)762341617962 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)8437998319981009 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.200.530.040.270.12 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)25993013225929161646458524 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.990.981.001.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17991832158317911806 Flt Permitted0.890.831.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (perm)16051542158317681794 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.920.92 Adj. Flow (vph)271083314328232171787059226 RTOR Reduction (vph)015000140120090 Lane Group Flow (vph)015300425180253001140 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)28.328.328.344.744.7 Effective Green, g (s)28.328.328.344.744.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.350.560.56 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5675455599871002 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.10c0.280.01c0.140.06 v/c Ratio0.270.780.030.260.11 Uniform Delay, d118.523.116.99.18.3 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.811.00 Incremental Delay, d20.16.40.00.50.2 Delay (s)18.629.416.917.08.5 Level of ServiceBCBBA Approach Delay (s)18.628.617.08.5 Approach LOSBCBA Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay21.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization58.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)3650524461583 v/c Ratio0.300.120.640.140.48 Control Delay41.81.56.046.419.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay41.81.56.046.419.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)221216890 Queue Length 95th (ft)m37m26m2423046 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)15443623822137195 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.230.120.640.110.43 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)354852300481480 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940470317191474 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940470317191474 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)365052396501583 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010079 Lane Group Flow (vph)3650524450154 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtNANANAPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)4.686.778.15.35.3 Effective Green, g (s)4.686.778.15.35.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.050.870.780.050.05 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)79428236739178 v/s Ratio Protc0.020.10c0.52c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm0.00 v/c Ratio0.460.120.670.160.06 Uniform Delay, d146.51.05.045.245.0 Progression Factor0.821.340.971.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.40.10.60.30.1 Delay (s)39.61.45.445.545.1 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)3.95.445.2 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay6.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceA HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization57.2%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)504521498875256 v/c Ratio0.310.430.761.070.30 Control Delay23.240.933.177.46.3 Queue Delay0.00.01.70.00.0 Total Delay23.240.934.877.46.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)7232334~62224 Queue Length 95th (ft)97m43m348#92880 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)18841372404821844 Starvation Cap Reductn0068900 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.270.380.871.070.30 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)364135511483866253 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)46551719471516411506 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)46551719471516411506 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)368136521498875256 RTOR Reduction (vph)75000091 Lane Group Flow (vph)4290521498875165 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeNAProtNANAPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)32.05.941.950.150.1 Effective Green, g (s)32.05.941.950.150.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.060.420.500.50 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)14891011975822754 v/s Ratio Prot0.090.03c0.32c0.53 v/s Ratio Perm0.11 v/c Ratio0.290.510.761.060.22 Uniform Delay, d125.545.724.724.914.0 Progression Factor1.170.771.291.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.51.11.750.00.1 Delay (s)30.436.433.574.914.1 Level of ServiceCDCEB Approach Delay (s)30.433.661.2 Approach LOSCCE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay42.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization92.1%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)132490363114622818278611 v/c Ratio1.100.330.890.990.690.160.550.81 Control Delay162.730.469.160.250.715.358.636.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.027.40.00.00.00.6 Total Delay162.730.469.187.550.715.358.637.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)~9884122~4081322648147 Queue Length 95th (ft)#221120#214#542#2885295194 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)1201485407116132911291661023 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00093000150 Storage Cap Reductn00000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.100.330.891.070.690.160.470.70 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1243171443418602172141086373344230 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.970.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.991.001.001.000.991.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.951.000.971.000.941.000.94 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194654333532021586312516623134 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194654333532021586312516623134 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)1323371533639152312281156778366245 RTOR Reduction (vph)08300220044001290 Lane Group Flow (vph)1324070363112402281380784820 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtNAProtNAProtNAProtNA Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s)7.029.412.234.821.534.77.319.9 Effective Green, g (s)7.029.412.234.821.534.77.319.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.070.290.120.350.220.350.070.20 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)120136840611143401084121623 v/s Ratio Protc0.080.090.11c0.35c0.140.040.05c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio1.100.300.891.010.670.130.640.77 Uniform Delay, d146.527.343.332.636.022.345.137.9 Progression Factor1.231.451.001.151.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d2110.50.520.929.14.00.08.55.4 Delay (s)167.540.264.166.840.122.353.643.4 Level of ServiceFDEEDCDD Approach Delay (s)67.266.132.244.5 Approach LOSEECD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay57.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization81.4%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)46162639389293 v/c Ratio0.670.810.050.570.41 Control Delay19.826.46.721.826.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.826.46.721.826.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)1452296142110 Queue Length 95th (ft)24036319239191 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)747842857680722 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.620.740.050.570.41 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)47300689946435581751182019747 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.850.950.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)18111847158317641811 Flt Permitted0.750.841.000.910.96 Satd. Flow (perm)13721566158316131745 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.900.90 Adj. Flow (vph)523337611051639641941312221952 RTOR Reduction (vph)01000070210090 Lane Group Flow (vph)045100626320368002840 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)39.339.339.332.732.7 Effective Green, g (s)39.339.339.332.732.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.490.490.490.410.41 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)673769777659713 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.33c0.400.02c0.230.16 v/c Ratio0.670.810.040.560.40 Uniform Delay, d115.417.310.618.116.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.39 Incremental Delay, d22.96.90.03.41.6 Delay (s)18.324.210.621.524.8 Level of ServiceBCBCC Approach Delay (s)18.323.421.524.8 Approach LOSBCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay21.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization96.4%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)4007862257178201 v/c Ratio0.450.090.650.070.310.37 Control Delay10.63.58.54.413.215.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay10.63.58.54.413.215.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)8048933646 Queue Length 95th (ft)13919m99m47894 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)894869952856572545 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.450.090.650.070.310.37 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)44336743955254348352559145 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.991.001.001.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185215831857158317671778 Flt Permitted0.901.000.961.000.920.88 Satd. Flow (perm)167815831786158316381582 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)46354784158157368755589647 RTOR Reduction (vph)0026001202700180 Lane Group Flow (vph)0400520622450151001830 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)894844952844546527 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.240.03c0.350.030.09c0.12 v/c Ratio0.450.060.650.050.280.35 Uniform Delay, d18.66.810.06.714.715.1 Progression Factor1.001.000.660.951.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.60.11.50.11.31.8 Delay (s)10.26.98.16.415.916.9 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)9.78.015.916.9 Approach LOSAABB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay10.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization77.7%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)6940173562240389 v/c Ratio0.560.500.980.090.330.54 Control Delay29.610.849.27.911.714.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay29.610.849.27.911.714.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)1265249849103 Queue Length 95th (ft)m#67113#4652794m172 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)124798748697732714 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.560.500.980.090.330.54 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)6630972676315935154397719598 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.971.000.850.980.96 Flt Protected0.951.001.001.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)177018101854158318061778 Flt Permitted0.151.000.931.000.910.89 Satd. Flow (perm)28718101727158316611598 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)69325767166462371624181205103 RTOR Reduction (vph)0140001101200220 Lane Group Flow (vph)6938700735510228003670 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases11122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)124784748685719692 v/s Ratio Prot0.21 v/s Ratio Perm0.24c0.430.030.14c0.23 v/c Ratio0.560.490.980.070.320.53 Uniform Delay, d112.712.316.810.011.212.5 Progression Factor0.700.731.001.001.001.04 Incremental Delay, d215.62.028.90.21.22.3 Delay (s)24.511.045.710.212.315.4 Level of ServiceCBDBBB Approach Delay (s)13.043.012.315.4 Approach LOSBDBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay26.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization98.2%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)292309876529275804155490174 v/c Ratio0.990.741.291.000.441.050.830.740.29 Control Delay91.139.3174.968.07.183.469.930.96.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay91.139.3174.968.07.183.469.930.96.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)187148~38234532~2301081376 Queue Length 95th (ft)#356#270#508#54568#321m#171m176m24 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)296420679531632766209659596 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.990.741.291.000.441.050.740.740.29 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)272132155815492256066087160440162 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.910.910.911.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.961.001.000.991.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.921.001.000.850.981.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156214552717166013914288123229441315 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.001.001.000.950.941.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156214552717166013914288123227821315 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)292142167876529275071094172473174 RTOR Reduction (vph)04200018700000110 Lane Group Flow (vph)2922670876529880804015549064 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeProtNAProtNAPermNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases3874652 Permitted Phases42 Actuated Green, G (s)19.026.025.032.032.017.915.137.037.0 Effective Green, g (s)19.026.025.032.032.017.915.137.037.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.190.260.250.320.320.180.150.370.37 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2963786795314457671861053486 v/s Ratio Prot0.190.18c0.32c0.32c0.19c0.130.07 v/s Ratio Perm0.060.100.05 v/c Ratio0.990.711.291.000.201.050.830.470.13 Uniform Delay, d140.433.537.533.924.741.041.224.020.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.120.971.610.890.991.031.42 Incremental Delay, d248.25.5139.133.10.245.021.20.10.5 Delay (s)88.539.0181.266.239.981.461.924.730.1 Level of ServiceFDFEDFECC Approach Delay (s)63.1121.981.432.9 Approach LOSEFFC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay85.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceF HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization91.0%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 11: 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy./Industrial Wy. & E. Grand Ave. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0117874900 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)0128581400 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume492449899 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol492449899 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10098100 cM capacity (veh/h)506557751 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2 Volume Total1257842 Volume Left000 Volume Right120814 cSH55717001700 Volume to Capacity0.020.030.50 Queue Length 95th (ft)200 Control Delay (s)11.60.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)11.60.0 Approach LOSB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)285370282229299385 v/c Ratio0.711.200.540.630.191.18 Control Delay39.0145.125.837.91.0141.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay39.0145.125.837.91.0141.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)71~2571171150~260 Queue Length 95th (ft)#129#42819619413#437 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)4003095263651582325 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.711.200.540.630.191.18 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)551674334420558221912786021880 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.000.991.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.971.000.850.97 Flt Protected0.990.951.000.991.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)270714131425147922241409 Flt Permitted0.540.581.000.921.000.83 Satd. Flow (perm)14678581425137222241178 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)591804637022062242052996523486 RTOR Reduction (vph)01800120001110120 Lane Group Flow (vph)026703702710022918803730 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermNAcustomPermNA Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)23.532.532.524.060.024.0 Effective Green, g (s)23.532.532.524.056.524.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.260.360.360.270.630.27 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3833095143651396314 v/s Ratio Prot0.190.08 v/s Ratio Permc0.18c0.430.17c0.32 v/c Ratio0.701.200.530.630.131.19 Uniform Delay, d130.028.822.729.16.833.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d210.1115.90.52.40.0112.3 Delay (s)40.1144.723.131.56.8145.3 Level of ServiceDFCCAF Approach Delay (s)40.192.117.5145.3 Approach LOSDFBF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay73.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization89.1%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)59927941521089304 v/c Ratio0.840.650.220.020.800.42 Control Delay35.750.36.147.517.21.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.01.30.3 Total Delay35.750.36.147.518.51.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)128922402108 Queue Length 95th (ft)174m#164m95m1m141m11 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9844271857811362731 Starvation Cap Reductn0000118115 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.610.650.220.020.880.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)33125027140321056295 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.941.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)257026492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)257026492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)34125827941521089304 RTOR Reduction (vph)16000000162 Lane Group Flow (vph)439027941521089142 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeNAProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)21.419.364.81.246.746.7 Effective Green, g (s)21.419.364.81.246.746.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.210.190.650.010.470.47 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5495111769161275542 v/s Ratio Protc0.17c0.110.150.00c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm0.12 v/c Ratio0.800.550.230.120.850.26 Uniform Delay, d137.336.47.348.923.616.2 Progression Factor1.001.060.771.070.780.76 Incremental Delay, d27.50.40.20.10.70.1 Delay (s)44.739.05.852.319.112.4 Level of ServiceDDADBB Approach Delay (s)44.719.217.7 Approach LOSDBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay24.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.5%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)109227257116628062394377201143796 v/c Ratio0.620.560.790.990.570.830.930.400.751.200.16 Control Delay55.846.033.762.638.120.8121.46.664.7124.97.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay55.846.033.762.638.120.8121.46.664.7124.97.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)73765926015398618130~5855 Queue Length 95th (ft)129111145#406254#330#16048m181#718m21 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)23653838211754947531019443651197619 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.460.420.670.990.570.830.930.400.551.200.16 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)14918325411542776179335339199142395 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.981.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.861.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923166146843881845156816942558166232021473 Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923166146843881845156816942558166232021473 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)15118525711662806239435342201143796 RTOR Reduction (vph)0014000333024900060 Lane Group Flow (vph)1092271171166280290941280201143736 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitNAProtSplitNAProtProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)12.712.712.726.826.826.86.027.216.237.437.4 Effective Green, g (s)12.712.712.726.826.826.86.027.216.237.437.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.130.130.130.270.270.270.060.270.160.370.37 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)17640218611754944201016952691197550 v/s Ratio Prot0.080.07c0.08c0.270.150.18c0.060.050.12c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.620.560.630.990.570.690.930.180.751.200.07 Uniform Delay, d141.441.141.436.531.632.946.827.939.931.320.1 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.290.902.05 Incremental Delay, d24.51.15.024.31.54.866.70.014.297.00.2 Delay (s)45.942.146.560.833.137.7113.527.965.7125.141.4 Level of ServiceDDDECDFCEFD Approach Delay (s)44.750.145.0113.6 Approach LOSDDDF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay71.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization87.9%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)1952772631264316842878322979 v/c Ratio0.970.800.550.450.960.970.180.080.760.98 Control Delay99.643.38.342.269.563.212.041.144.941.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay99.643.38.342.269.563.212.041.144.941.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)112121065242200364170167 Queue Length 95th (ft)#24619862#158#427#3127418#294#323 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090100 Base Capacity (vph)2004515652804507081577323423997 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.970.610.470.450.960.970.180.020.760.98 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1911214091234184670209738316959 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.950.951.001.000.970.951.001.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.990.981.001.001.000.991.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.920.851.001.001.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1641157114431556184233353242153117332493 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1641157114431556184233353242153117332493 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)1951234171264274684213748322979 RTOR Reduction (vph)055214000028000388 Lane Group Flow (vph)19522249126431068425908322591 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNAProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases52167438 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)11.016.716.716.221.919.139.91.222.022.0 Effective Green, g (s)11.016.716.716.221.919.139.91.222.022.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.190.190.180.240.210.440.010.240.24 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)200291267280448707143720423609 v/s Ratio Protc0.12c0.140.08c0.23c0.210.080.010.19 v/s Ratio Perm0.03c0.24 v/c Ratio0.970.760.180.450.960.970.180.400.760.97 Uniform Delay, d139.434.830.932.933.635.115.244.031.633.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d255.810.20.10.432.525.60.34.77.128.5 Delay (s)95.145.031.033.366.260.715.448.838.762.1 Level of ServiceFDCCEEBDDE Approach Delay (s)53.358.747.356.3 Approach LOSDEDE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay53.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.6%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)397396169281130049138633220 v/c Ratio0.840.830.310.160.060.580.310.350.950.54 Control Delay47.747.05.21.80.722.012.552.267.318.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay47.747.05.21.80.722.012.552.267.318.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)24524320095622421332 Queue Length 95th (ft)329326420015318655#433#145 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5425446074664415191581132663411 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.730.730.280.060.020.580.310.290.950.54 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)732131591708112824352636595 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.951.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.991.001.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.950.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715241405145313581597315315973195 Flt Permitted0.950.951.000.971.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715241405145313581597315315973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)779141691809123004632838633 RTOR Reduction (vph)0011302701103000 Lane Group Flow (vph)397396560100300488038633 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAProtProtNAProtNA Protected Phases443331652 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)31.231.231.22.72.732.547.74.919.6 Effective Green, g (s)31.231.231.22.72.732.547.74.919.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.310.310.310.030.030.320.480.050.20 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4734754383936519150378626 v/s Ratio Protc0.260.26c0.000.00c0.190.150.02c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm0.04 v/c Ratio0.840.830.130.020.010.580.320.491.01 Uniform Delay, d132.132.024.747.447.328.116.246.340.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.580.651.001.00 Incremental Delay, d211.911.40.00.10.01.50.61.738.8 Delay (s)43.943.424.747.447.417.911.248.179.0 Level of ServiceDDCDDBBDE Approach Delay (s)40.347.413.767.5 Approach LOSDDBE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay41.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization69.4%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)207 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1384 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1384 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)220 RTOR Reduction (vph)129 Lane Group Flow (vph)91 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)19.6 Effective Green, g (s)19.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.20 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)271 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.07 v/c Ratio0.34 Uniform Delay, d134.6 Progression Factor1.00 Incremental Delay, d23.3 Delay (s)37.9 Level of ServiceD Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Existing Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 Cumulative (2035) AM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)20310839420251340 v/c Ratio0.730.211.090.040.660.67 Control Delay38.25.499.310.627.626.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay38.25.499.310.627.626.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)660~166282104 Queue Length 95th (ft)#16230#31215m#164#190 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)279514362445381506 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.730.211.090.040.660.67 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)631341051422411936182251226751 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.990.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)183315831829158318231820 Flt Permitted0.551.000.711.000.740.99 Satd. Flow (perm)101615831314158313591800 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)651381081462482037188261227553 RTOR Reduction (vph)007800100700110 Lane Group Flow (vph)0203300394100244003290 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)279435361435374495 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.200.02c0.300.01c0.18c0.18 v/c Ratio0.730.071.090.020.650.66 Uniform Delay, d119.716.121.815.919.219.3 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.951.00 Incremental Delay, d215.30.374.20.18.56.9 Delay (s)35.016.495.916.026.626.2 Level of ServiceDBFBCC Approach Delay (s)28.692.026.626.2 Approach LOSCFCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay47.6HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization68.1%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)12980323817654560 v/c Ratio0.610.450.250.370.740.17 Control Delay52.416.713.447.543.19.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay52.416.713.447.543.19.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)7815970571710 Queue Length 95th (ft)137235132m6621831 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)2521815983563799383 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.510.440.240.310.680.16 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0012577916665351360052958 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.971.000.950.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.94 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.991.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156533351781349034381452 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.991.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156533351781349034381452 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)0012980317167361400054560 RTOR Reduction (vph)00001300000047 Lane Group Flow (vph)00129803225001760054513 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)13.653.153.113.621.321.3 Effective Green, g (s)13.653.153.113.621.321.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.140.530.530.140.210.21 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2131771946475732309 v/s Ratio Protc0.08c0.240.130.05c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.610.450.240.370.740.04 Uniform Delay, d140.714.512.639.336.831.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.211.001.00 Incremental Delay, d25.50.80.60.24.10.1 Delay (s)46.215.313.247.740.931.3 Level of ServiceDBBDDC Approach Delay (s)46.214.847.740.0 Approach LOSDBDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay27.7HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization54.6%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)31518623239160 v/c Ratio0.710.720.060.210.14 Control Delay29.438.77.53.65.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay29.438.77.53.65.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)1107501918 Queue Length 95th (ft)15911914m5054 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)89855481411191179 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.340.030.210.14 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2519585791022239102911411329 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.000.850.950.97 Flt Protected1.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17851823158317491808 Flt Permitted0.970.591.000.940.98 Satd. Flow (perm)17321092158316641771 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)2620188811052340105941411630 RTOR Reduction (vph)030000180190070 Lane Group Flow (vph)02850018650220001530 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)16.716.716.746.346.3 Effective Green, g (s)16.716.716.746.346.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.240.240.660.66 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)41326137811011171 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.16c0.170.00c0.130.09 v/c Ratio0.690.710.010.200.13 Uniform Delay, d124.324.420.44.64.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.671.00 Incremental Delay, d23.87.40.00.40.2 Delay (s)28.131.920.43.54.6 Level of ServiceCCCAA Approach Delay (s)28.130.63.54.6 Approach LOSCCAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay18.2HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization58.1%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)881370673101108 v/c Ratio0.530.340.210.570.43 Control Delay47.82.06.054.913.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay47.82.06.054.913.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)554051620 Queue Length 95th (ft)m77m557611148 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22540383278309360 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.390.340.210.330.30 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)8513296054898105 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940467117191496 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940467117191496 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)88137062449101108 RTOR Reduction (vph)0040097 Lane Group Flow (vph)881370669010111 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)8.481.769.310.310.3 Effective Green, g (s)8.481.769.310.310.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.080.820.690.100.10 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)14440363237177154 v/s Ratio Protc0.05c0.280.14c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.610.340.210.570.07 Uniform Delay, d144.22.35.542.740.5 Progression Factor0.890.720.931.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.50.20.12.70.1 Delay (s)43.81.95.345.540.6 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)4.45.343.0 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay8.1HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization37.8%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)1441274312281022 v/c Ratio0.610.240.170.370.87 Control Delay21.235.87.825.329.7 Queue Delay0.20.00.00.08.4 Total Delay21.535.87.825.338.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)2511229101243 Queue Length 95th (ft)2672231179#423 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)253013829236161181 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn372000138 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.670.200.150.370.98 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)138641274272261012 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)49101719471516412651 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)49101719471516412651 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)140041274312281022 RTOR Reduction (vph)30000185 Lane Group Flow (vph)1438027431228837 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)46.24.254.437.637.6 Effective Green, g (s)46.24.254.437.637.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.460.040.540.380.38 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2268722565617997 v/s Ratio Protc0.29c0.020.090.14 v/s Ratio Permc0.32 v/c Ratio0.630.380.170.370.84 Uniform Delay, d120.546.611.422.628.4 Progression Factor1.010.700.681.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.31.20.10.16.0 Delay (s)21.933.87.922.734.5 Level of ServiceCCACC Approach Delay (s)21.99.432.3 Approach LOSCAC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay24.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization72.2%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)23521469125439581149956265240 v/c Ratio0.421.240.160.790.660.220.351.830.960.38 Control Delay26.1140.08.060.138.926.819.1395.789.137.8 Queue Delay0.019.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay26.1159.68.060.138.926.819.1395.789.137.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)79~609584834668~80517071 Queue Length 95th (ft)m142#713m26#143109m51m46m#753#328107 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)555173056432716343764205222751132 Starvation Cap Reductn05900000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.421.280.160.780.240.220.351.830.960.21 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)228208288246340437914592725719835 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.970.911.001.001.001.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.971.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.000.981.001.000.851.000.98 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719494014823335465116411827148817193405 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1719494014823335465116411827148817193405 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)235214691254351448114995626520436 RTOR Reduction (vph)00460210001790170 Lane Group Flow (vph)2352146452543740811497772652230 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtPermProtProtPermProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)32.334.234.29.611.721.323.023.016.817.9 Effective Green, g (s)32.334.234.29.611.721.323.023.016.817.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.340.340.100.120.210.230.230.170.18 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5551689507320544350420342289609 v/s Ratio Prot0.14c0.430.08c0.080.050.08c0.150.07 v/s Ratio Perm0.03c0.52 v/c Ratio0.421.270.090.790.690.230.352.270.920.37 Uniform Delay, d126.532.922.344.242.432.632.338.540.936.1 Progression Factor0.880.880.930.930.860.880.550.581.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.1125.30.211.96.90.00.1575.531.30.1 Delay (s)23.4154.321.052.943.428.717.9597.772.336.2 Level of ServiceCFCDDCBFED Approach Delay (s)137.047.1486.055.1 Approach LOSFDFE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay202.3HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization123.3%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)51134155315232 v/c Ratio0.780.570.080.400.30 Control Delay24.717.94.715.017.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.717.94.715.017.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)1649948188 Queue Length 95th (ft)25115419157154 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)770709833797772 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.660.480.070.400.30 Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10532665992325325190903215340 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)18111835158317811805 Flt Permitted0.810.741.000.970.93 Satd. Flow (perm)14841378158317301692 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)108336671022395526196933315841 RTOR Reduction (vph)090002101900100 Lane Group Flow (vph)050200341340296002220 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)30.530.530.531.531.5 Effective Green, g (s)30.530.530.531.531.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.440.440.440.450.45 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)647600690779761 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.340.250.02c0.170.13 v/c Ratio0.780.570.050.380.29 Uniform Delay, d116.814.811.412.812.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.22 Incremental Delay, d26.21.50.01.41.0 Delay (s)23.016.311.414.215.9 Level of ServiceCBBBB Approach Delay (s)23.015.614.215.9 Approach LOSCBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay17.9HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.5%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)4927024446165129 v/c Ratio0.510.080.270.050.310.22 Control Delay11.34.15.71.015.810.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay11.34.15.71.015.810.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)10353204018 Queue Length 95th (ft)1742045m48251 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)966863910866535596 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.510.080.270.050.310.22 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)31446683220545598317175453 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.990.94 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185715831850158318021743 Flt Permitted0.971.000.921.000.860.96 Satd. Flow (perm)181215831706158315831679 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)32460703321146618618185655 RTOR Reduction (vph)001900210700370 Lane Group Flow (vph)049251024425015800920 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)966844910844528560 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.270.030.140.02c0.100.05 v/c Ratio0.510.060.270.030.300.16 Uniform Delay, d19.06.87.66.614.814.1 Progression Factor1.001.000.630.371.001.00 Incremental Delay, d21.90.10.70.11.40.6 Delay (s)10.96.95.52.516.314.7 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)10.45.016.314.7 Approach LOSBABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay10.4HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization63.1%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)5206526832150419 v/c Ratio0.670.090.400.050.200.58 Control Delay14.86.313.95.08.516.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay14.86.313.95.08.516.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)81363122126 Queue Length 95th (ft)147m141151352m202 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)771702674702736719 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.670.090.400.050.200.58 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)454606345215312380439425359 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185515831847158317751805 Flt Permitted0.951.000.841.000.920.90 Satd. Flow (perm)177815831555158316431635 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)464746546222322482449726161 RTOR Reduction (vph)0016001602500100 Lane Group Flow (vph)0520490268160125004090 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)770686674686712709 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.290.030.170.010.08c0.25 v/c Ratio0.680.070.400.020.180.58 Uniform Delay, d113.69.911.69.710.412.8 Progression Factor0.730.901.001.001.001.08 Incremental Delay, d24.40.21.80.10.52.4 Delay (s)14.39.113.49.811.016.3 Level of ServiceBABABB Approach Delay (s)13.713.011.016.3 Approach LOSBBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay14.0HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization84.3%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)692892471627536467222801676 v/c Ratio1.190.171.301.400.450.350.990.621.170.65 Control Delay133.17.0206.4258.729.351.971.735.1126.330.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.5 Total Delay133.17.0206.4258.729.351.971.735.1126.331.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)~5354~107~1431920162137~310155 Queue Length 95th (ft)#75536#189#27661m38m#255m188#446271 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)150 Base Capacity (vph)5815211901161661104733606831044 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000100 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.190.171.301.400.450.330.990.621.170.72 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)249422862401577335453215777527129 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.001.000.951.000.970.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.981.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.97 Flt Protected0.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1614130427171660138115773154138426262974 Flt Permitted0.981.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1614130427171660138115773154138426262974 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)257435892471627536467222801543133 RTOR Reduction (vph)005100700000220 Lane Group Flow (vph)0692382471625364672228016540 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtpt+ovProt Protected Phases8877166 752 Permitted Phases87 Actuated Green, G (s)36.036.07.07.07.06.615.026.026.034.4 Effective Green, g (s)36.036.07.07.07.06.615.026.026.034.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.360.360.070.070.070.070.150.260.260.34 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.52.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)581469190116971044733606831023 v/s Ratio Protc0.430.09c0.100.02c0.150.16c0.300.22 v/s Ratio Perm0.030.00 v/c Ratio1.190.081.301.400.050.350.990.621.170.64 Uniform Delay, d132.021.146.546.543.444.642.432.637.027.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.830.980.810.850.981.05 Incremental Delay, d2102.20.1167.8222.10.21.234.62.392.12.9 Delay (s)134.221.1214.3268.779.845.169.130.0128.331.8 Level of ServiceFCFFEDECFC Approach Delay (s)121.3211.755.984.1 Approach LOSFFEF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay104.4HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization101.0%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)023856131800 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)024882135900 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume8824412241 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol8824412241 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10096100 cM capacity (veh/h)285564227 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2NB 3 Volume Total24588747906 Volume Left0000 Volume Right240453906 cSH564170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.040.350.440.53 Queue Length 95th (ft)3000 Control Delay (s)11.70.00.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)11.70.0 Approach LOSB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7%ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)673220227214279432 v/c Ratio1.161.440.590.640.201.51 Control Delay115.3257.130.032.33.0271.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay115.3257.130.032.33.0271.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)~187~137868310~279 Queue Length 95th (ft)#293#264156#16326#450 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)5811533863361421286 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.161.440.590.640.201.51 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)22514116213198227613227117620539 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.981.000.850.99 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.000.98 Satd. Flow (prot)272414131459146022241430 Flt Permitted0.680.401.000.751.000.64 Satd. Flow (perm)1843589145911142224932 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)23530120220204237813627918121140 RTOR Reduction (vph)02500600073050 Lane Group Flow (vph)064802202210021420604270 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)22.019.019.022.044.522.0 Effective Green, g (s)22.019.019.022.041.022.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.260.260.300.560.30 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5551533803361249281 v/s Ratio Prot0.150.09 v/s Ratio Permc0.35c0.370.19c0.46 v/c Ratio1.171.440.580.640.171.52 Uniform Delay, d125.527.023.522.07.725.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d293.5230.11.52.90.0251.4 Delay (s)119.0257.125.024.97.8276.9 Level of ServiceFFCCAF Approach Delay (s)119.0139.315.2276.9 Approach LOSFFBF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay131.8HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization87.6%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)81611928522593265 v/c Ratio0.900.190.170.260.540.42 Control Delay37.429.98.972.222.75.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay37.429.98.972.222.75.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)18034221510420 Queue Length 95th (ft)251m6267m22m95m53 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)10136611674851296695 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.810.180.170.260.460.38 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)40638511527621575257 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.931.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)254727402825141328251201 Flt Permitted0.970.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)254727402825141328251201 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)41939711928522593265 RTOR Reduction (vph)18500000168 Lane Group Flow (vph)63101192852259397 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)28.122.856.92.436.536.5 Effective Green, g (s)28.122.856.92.436.536.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.230.570.020.360.36 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)7166251607341031438 v/s Ratio Protc0.250.04c0.100.02c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm0.08 v/c Ratio0.880.190.180.650.580.22 Uniform Delay, d134.431.210.348.425.521.9 Progression Factor1.000.950.781.490.791.35 Incremental Delay, d212.00.00.217.41.40.7 Delay (s)46.329.68.289.521.530.3 Level of ServiceDCAFCC Approach Delay (s)46.314.525.9 Approach LOSDBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay31.6HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)8.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.7%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)11624113044622118421568016573075 v/c Ratio0.640.580.430.510.600.410.780.860.250.640.13 Control Delay56.645.811.238.243.913.960.121.419.126.86.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay56.645.811.238.243.913.960.121.419.126.86.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)798001021442713251592535 Queue Length 95th (ft)1351155013621788#222110m154#395m30 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)25157937111194705323199746481137571 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.460.420.350.400.470.350.670.700.250.640.13 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)13521912944221918221316051316372374 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.891.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923219146843881845156817522754171933121523 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923219146843881845156817522754171933121523 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)13622113044622118421516251816573075 RTOR Reduction (vph)0011300142045400049 Lane Group Flow (vph)1162411744622142215226016573026 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)13.013.013.019.919.919.915.712.337.734.334.3 Effective Green, g (s)13.013.013.019.919.919.915.712.337.734.334.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.130.130.130.200.200.200.160.120.380.340.34 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1814181918733673122753396481136522 v/s Ratio Protc0.080.070.010.10c0.120.03c0.120.08c0.10c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.640.580.090.510.600.140.780.670.250.640.05 Uniform Delay, d141.340.938.335.736.433.040.541.921.527.722.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.031.042.041.001.000.670.750.75 Incremental Delay, d25.71.20.10.52.70.212.53.80.82.30.1 Delay (s)47.042.138.437.440.567.553.045.715.222.916.5 Level of ServiceDDDDDEDDBCB Approach Delay (s)42.344.747.421.1 Approach LOSDDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay38.0HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)21.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization64.8%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)12625253624108745717646182295 v/c Ratio0.470.700.560.240.181.000.281.080.030.700.47 Control Delay39.342.68.149.738.0374.419.463.146.568.520.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay39.342.68.149.738.0374.419.463.146.568.520.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)3116471524080213412419 Queue Length 95th (ft)m59m2431144136#31m92m#514m10m156m55 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323761000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)35043810401241058716431637317358750 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.360.580.520.190.101.000.281.080.020.510.39 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1232475252410674489427876178289 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.971.000.881.000.911.000.970.951.001.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.931.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)31831827263215565036156833353094158317922566 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)31831827263215565036156833353094158317922566 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)1262525362410874579618036182295 RTOR Reduction (vph)004300070117000253 Lane Group Flow (vph)12625210624108045716470618242 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtNASplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)8.419.719.73.014.30.046.946.914.414.414.4 Effective Green, g (s)8.419.719.73.014.30.046.946.914.414.414.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.080.200.200.030.140.000.470.470.140.140.14 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)26736051947720015641451228258370 v/s Ratio Prot0.04c0.14c0.020.020.14c0.530.00c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm0.040.02 v/c Ratio0.470.700.200.510.150.000.291.130.030.710.11 Uniform Delay, d143.737.433.647.837.550.016.326.636.840.837.3 Progression Factor0.790.902.051.001.001.001.070.921.371.384.29 Incremental Delay, d20.44.10.13.80.00.00.264.50.06.30.0 Delay (s)35.037.769.151.637.650.017.788.950.562.5159.8 Level of ServiceDDEDDDBFDEF Approach Delay (s)55.740.674.2121.8 Approach LOSEDEF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay74.6HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization86.4%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)885874459902622630497561107 v/c Ratio1.141.110.340.600.160.970.520.781.600.47 Control Delay102.994.39.456.916.183.132.588.6314.227.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay102.994.39.456.916.183.132.588.6314.227.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)~713~6935056015310363~2560 Queue Length 95th (ft)#1017#9979810624#299143#151#37463 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)7797861356358364232581128351229 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.141.110.340.250.070.970.520.761.600.47 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)16198744519065282192801594544 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.950.880.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.980.981.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.880.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.961.000.991.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715292453137013261597315815973195 Flt Permitted0.950.961.000.991.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715292453137013261597315815973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)16699045920067292262891597561 RTOR Reduction (vph)00980202304000 Lane Group Flow (vph)88587436108803226300097561 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtProt Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)51.451.451.49.79.714.517.77.710.4 Effective Green, g (s)51.451.451.49.79.714.517.77.710.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.510.510.100.100.140.180.080.10 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)7807861261133129232559123332 v/s Ratio Protc0.580.57c0.06c0.140.090.06c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm0.150.00 v/c Ratio1.131.110.290.660.020.970.540.791.69 Uniform Delay, d124.324.313.843.640.842.637.445.444.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.640.801.181.11 Incremental Delay, d276.167.40.09.20.050.23.523.3321.7 Delay (s)100.491.713.952.840.977.633.376.8371.4 Level of ServiceFFBDDECEF Approach Delay (s)79.150.152.2291.6 Approach LOSEDDF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay119.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization91.0%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)104 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1370 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1370 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)107 RTOR Reduction (vph)79 Lane Group Flow (vph)28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)10.4 Effective Green, g (s)10.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.10 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)142 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.20 Uniform Delay, d141.0 Progression Factor1.60 Incremental Delay, d22.8 Delay (s)68.1 Level of ServiceE Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) AMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V13,710vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,608veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v14,865pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume12,567pcph11,750pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume2,298pcph2,000pcphYes LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,477pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.05 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V11,559vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,042veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v12,533pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,507pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.07 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V9,773vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,572veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v10,596pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,649pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.13 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,655vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,278veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,384pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,346pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,52.3mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.00 Density,D44.8pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V9,3853882,1740vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,4701025720veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v10,1764152,3570pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.214 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,772lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,482lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 407 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,242lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,724lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W2.270 Averageweavingspeed,S30.3mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S32.6mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S32.1mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.29 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v12,947pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c9,744vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume12,539pcph11,750pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume10,631pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume415pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume2,323pcph2,100pcphYes LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003004,681ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0072,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.291.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,8118441,9620vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,0562225160veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,4699022,1270pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.263 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,029lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC3,022lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,101 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,327lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,349lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.012 Averageweavingspeed,S39.8mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S29.4mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S31.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.44 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,498pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,776vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume10,610pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,415pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume902pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume2,096pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503005,195ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0022,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.441.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,9501,019706235vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,09226818662veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,6191,089765251pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.173 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,854lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,710lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 142 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,014lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,724lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S38.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.33 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v10,724pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,839vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,404pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,739pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,340pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume1,005pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803004,260ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0182,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.331.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V13,342vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,511veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v14,466pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume11,842pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume2,624pcph2,000pcphYes LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,617pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.54 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V10,886vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,865veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v11,803pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,951pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.26 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V11,606vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,054veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v12,584pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume11,815pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume769pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,146pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.34 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V12,523vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,296veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v13,578pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume13,118pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume460pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,395pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.44 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V12,954vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,409veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v14,045pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,511pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.49 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V11,5161,007810200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,03126521353veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v12,4861,076878214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.133 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,954lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,823lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 838 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC2,025lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,847lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.569 Averageweavingspeed,S34.5mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S33.3mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S33.5mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.76 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v14,654pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,077vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume13,384pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume13,594pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,290pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,079pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303003,866ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0792,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.761.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V11,9241,0551,030250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,13827827166veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v12,9291,1271,117267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.145 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,244lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,206lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,504 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC3,003lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 5,209lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.295 Averageweavingspeed,S36.8mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S30.3mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S31.1mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.85 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v15,440pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,114vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume14,066pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume14,093pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,394pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,368pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703003,985ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0892,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.851.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Cumulative (2035) PM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)16115170556353441 v/c Ratio1.730.281.690.120.910.87 Control Delay393.25.1344.912.346.041.5 Queue Delay0.00.024.60.00.00.1 Total Delay393.25.2369.512.346.041.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)~890~3879124147 Queue Length 95th (ft)#19036#56932m#234#300 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)93545416451388505 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn02413001 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.730.291.750.120.910.88 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)80791491945045542282261435864 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.990.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)181715831837158318331823 Flt Permitted0.181.000.811.000.760.98 Satd. Flow (perm)33915831511158313941798 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)81801511965095642285261436265 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010900160500100 Lane Group Flow (vph)0161420705400348004310 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)93435416435383494 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.470.030.470.03c0.25c0.24 v/c Ratio1.730.101.690.090.910.87 Uniform Delay, d121.816.221.816.221.020.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.791.00 Incremental Delay, d2369.80.4322.80.425.218.7 Delay (s)391.616.6344.616.641.839.5 Level of ServiceFBFBDD Approach Delay (s)210.1320.541.839.5 Approach LOSFFDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay183.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization91.5%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)9626151044142163 v/c Ratio0.290.250.870.600.520.16 Control Delay19.914.337.424.218.55.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay19.914.337.424.218.55.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)223013977570 Queue Length 95th (ft)6154#307m1118020 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)32910505847321100516 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.290.250.870.600.380.12 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)00932533871081123160040861 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.971.000.950.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.000.971.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.991.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156533351796348634381477 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.991.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156533351796348634381477 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)00962613991111153260042163 RTOR Reduction (vph)00001900000048 Lane Group Flow (vph)0096261491004410042115 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)10.515.715.710.511.811.8 Effective Green, g (s)10.515.715.710.511.811.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.210.310.310.210.240.24 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3291047564732811349 v/s Ratio Prot0.060.08c0.27c0.13c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.290.250.870.600.520.04 Uniform Delay, d116.612.816.217.916.614.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.101.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.70.616.61.60.60.1 Delay (s)17.313.332.821.217.214.8 Level of ServiceBBCCBB Approach Delay (s)17.326.221.216.9 Approach LOSBCCB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay22.0HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization60.8%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)24760848392187 v/c Ratio0.390.880.060.490.23 Control Delay13.734.66.628.114.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.40.0 Total Delay13.734.66.628.514.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)65246618352 Queue Length 95th (ft)110#39822m227100 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)712776832805815 Starvation Cap Reductn0001170 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.780.060.570.23 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)4015248180409472626391813638 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.970.97 Flt Protected0.990.981.001.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17981835158317961806 Flt Permitted0.750.801.000.980.98 Satd. Flow (perm)13531496158317571783 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)4115749186422482727194814039 RTOR Reduction (vph)0120001201300110 Lane Group Flow (vph)023500608360379001760 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)36.936.936.936.136.1 Effective Green, g (s)36.936.936.936.136.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.460.460.460.450.45 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)624690730793805 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.17c0.410.02c0.220.10 v/c Ratio0.380.880.050.480.22 Uniform Delay, d114.019.611.915.413.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.631.00 Incremental Delay, d20.112.30.01.40.6 Delay (s)14.231.911.926.414.0 Level of ServiceBCBCB Approach Delay (s)14.230.426.414.0 Approach LOSBCCB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay24.6HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization83.9%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)122463220657343 v/c Ratio0.580.110.690.460.81 Control Delay43.61.76.556.620.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay43.61.76.556.620.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)77895350 Queue Length 95th (ft)m129m2326976#123 Internal Link Dist (ft)350860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)21341893212138435 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.570.110.690.410.79 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)118449198515555333 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940467117191486 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940467117191486 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)122463204616057343 RTOR Reduction (vph)00500318 Lane Group Flow (vph)122463220105725 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)12.184.868.77.27.2 Effective Green, g (s)12.184.868.77.27.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.850.690.070.07 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)20841893209124107 v/s Ratio Protc0.070.09c0.47c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.590.110.690.460.23 Uniform Delay, d141.61.39.344.543.8 Progression Factor0.811.240.541.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.50.01.01.00.4 Delay (s)36.11.66.145.544.2 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)8.86.144.4 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay11.4HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization69.1%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)509481859303495 v/c Ratio0.180.370.590.730.48 Control Delay15.236.612.444.13.9 Queue Delay0.00.051.10.00.0 Total Delay15.236.663.544.13.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)6727681780 Queue Length 95th (ft)113m22m39323936 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)287914731496731379 Starvation Cap Reductn00147000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.180.331.110.450.36 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)45945481840300490 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.991.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)48491719471516412651 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)48491719471516412651 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)46445481859303495 RTOR Reduction (vph)80000370 Lane Group Flow (vph)5010481859303125 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)57.65.266.825.225.2 Effective Green, g (s)57.65.266.825.225.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.580.050.670.250.25 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2793893150414668 v/s Ratio Prot0.100.03c0.39c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm0.05 v/c Ratio0.180.540.590.730.19 Uniform Delay, d110.046.29.134.329.4 Progression Factor1.340.821.201.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.10.30.16.60.1 Delay (s)13.638.411.040.929.5 Level of ServiceBDBDC Approach Delay (s)13.611.733.8 Approach LOSBBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay17.5HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization63.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)2006151637371673164223123991120 v/c Ratio0.970.420.291.401.051.250.410.230.571.10 Control Delay97.527.19.1224.673.3202.836.313.955.295.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.0140.40.00.00.00.00.9 Total Delay97.527.19.1224.6213.8202.836.313.955.295.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)132710~329~430~1351121361~424 Queue Length 95th (ft)#27817681#448#528#26921955110#557 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)206147255652715891315475322411014 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000037100002 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.970.420.291.401.371.250.410.230.411.11 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)19459715871515269715921611996884203 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.970.911.001.001.001.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.971.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.000.991.001.000.851.000.97 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719494014803335468116411827149017193382 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1719494014803335468116411827149017193382 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)200615163737157310016422312399911209 RTOR Reduction (vph)0011607000860200 Lane Group Flow (vph)2006154773716660164223379911000 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtPermProtProtPermProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)12.029.029.015.833.08.829.929.98.929.4 Effective Green, g (s)12.029.029.015.833.08.829.929.98.929.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.120.290.290.160.330.090.300.300.090.29 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)20614334295271545144546446153994 v/s Ratio Protc0.120.12c0.22c0.36c0.100.120.06c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm0.030.02 v/c Ratio0.970.430.111.401.081.140.410.080.651.11 Uniform Delay, d143.828.826.042.133.545.628.025.244.035.3 Progression Factor0.920.931.751.011.091.101.122.211.001.00 Incremental Delay, d253.20.90.5190.647.1116.30.20.06.962.5 Delay (s)93.427.646.2233.383.6166.331.555.650.997.8 Level of ServiceFCDFFFCEDF Approach Delay (s)44.2129.480.794.0 Approach LOSDFFF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay99.8HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization96.9%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)47856458564402 v/c Ratio0.680.850.070.890.57 Control Delay19.530.56.641.828.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.1 Total Delay19.530.56.641.828.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)1472098261176 Queue Length 95th (ft)249#40425#475m258 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)756722861634705 Starvation Cap Reductn000024 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.630.780.070.890.59 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)6429710315439356872791802929863 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17951837158317661815 Flt Permitted0.770.721.000.850.95 Satd. Flow (perm)13831344158315191725 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)6630610615940558902881863030765 RTOR Reduction (vph)014000110210080 Lane Group Flow (vph)046400564470543003940 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)39.739.739.732.332.3 Effective Green, g (s)39.739.739.732.332.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.500.500.500.400.40 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)686667786613696 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.34c0.420.03c0.360.23 v/c Ratio0.680.850.060.890.57 Uniform Delay, d115.317.510.522.118.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.29 Incremental Delay, d22.910.00.017.12.9 Delay (s)18.227.510.539.326.7 Level of ServiceBCBDC Approach Delay (s)18.225.939.326.7 Approach LOSBCDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay27.9HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization116.9%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)41210458486257274 v/c Ratio0.500.120.630.100.440.50 Control Delay11.53.58.93.415.918.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay11.53.58.93.415.918.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)8657835969 Queue Length 95th (ft)15124m123m7115132 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)829877921864578548 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.500.120.630.100.440.50 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)66334101595078337133806713861 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.991.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)184715831853158317691782 Flt Permitted0.831.000.931.000.930.88 Satd. Flow (perm)155415831727158316511591 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)68344104615238638137826914263 RTOR Reduction (vph)0033002002800180 Lane Group Flow (vph)0412710584660229002560 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)829844921844550530 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.270.04c0.340.040.14c0.16 v/c Ratio0.500.080.630.080.420.48 Uniform Delay, d18.96.89.96.815.515.9 Progression Factor1.001.000.660.771.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.10.21.90.12.33.1 Delay (s)11.07.08.55.417.819.0 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)10.28.117.819.0 Approach LOSBABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay11.9HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.5%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)38711958981346552 v/c Ratio0.890.160.830.120.490.79 Control Delay37.14.428.07.414.519.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay37.14.428.07.414.519.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)7921791080195 Queue Length 95th (ft)#26823#35331145m219 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)434727710704702699 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.890.160.830.120.490.79 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9328211582489795622653106294136 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.97 Flt Protected0.991.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)184015831849158318081781 Flt Permitted0.541.000.881.000.870.87 Satd. Flow (perm)100215831638158315941566 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)9629111985504815823355109303140 RTOR Reduction (vph)0041001801100200 Lane Group Flow (vph)0387780589630335005320 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)434686710686691679 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.390.050.360.040.21c0.34 v/c Ratio0.890.110.830.090.480.78 Uniform Delay, d115.710.115.010.012.214.6 Progression Factor0.720.761.001.001.001.07 Incremental Delay, d221.20.310.80.32.42.6 Delay (s)32.68.025.910.314.618.2 Level of ServiceCACBBB Approach Delay (s)26.824.014.618.2 Approach LOSCCBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay21.6HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization102.3%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)3577885258824046543175251527 v/c Ratio0.910.211.211.360.460.470.870.250.710.63 Control Delay64.98.3142.0210.19.966.950.610.749.233.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay64.98.3142.0210.19.966.950.610.749.233.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)2170~347~50321281405682145 Queue Length 95th (ft)#37536#469#716m85m56#335m80124195 Internal Link Dist (ft)585161328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)150 Base Capacity (vph)41639670643252397627690446841 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.860.201.211.360.460.470.870.250.560.63 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1921547682657023345527170243365146 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.001.000.951.000.970.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.96 Flt Protected0.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1600130227171660139115773154138426262919 Flt Permitted0.971.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1600130227171660139115773154138426262919 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)1981597885258824046543175251376151 RTOR Reduction (vph)0059001610000420 Lane Group Flow (vph)03571985258879465431752514850 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtpt+ovProt Protected Phases8877166 752 Permitted Phases87 Actuated Green, G (s)24.524.526.026.026.06.119.949.913.627.4 Effective Green, g (s)24.524.526.026.026.06.119.949.913.627.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.240.260.260.260.060.200.500.140.27 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.52.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)39231970643236296628691357800 v/s Ratio Protc0.220.31c0.350.03c0.170.13c0.100.17 v/s Ratio Perm0.010.06 v/c Ratio0.910.061.211.360.220.480.860.250.700.61 Uniform Delay, d136.728.937.037.029.045.438.714.441.331.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.071.071.191.130.860.620.941.04 Incremental Delay, d224.80.1106.0176.80.32.511.00.15.03.3 Delay (s)61.529.0145.8216.634.753.744.49.043.736.2 Level of ServiceECFFCDDADD Approach Delay (s)55.7154.736.938.6 Approach LOSEFDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay93.6HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization92.0%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)096859700 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)097061500 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume7035686 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol7035686 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10099100 cM capacity (veh/h)9261030904 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2NB 3 Volume Total947229410 Volume Left0000 Volume Right90205410 cSH1030170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.010.030.130.24 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.50.00.00.0 Lane LOSA Approach Delay (s)8.50.0 Approach LOSA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)439298528267245402 v/c Ratio0.911.551.370.880.171.40 Control Delay48.9298.0209.356.51.2225.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay48.9298.0209.356.51.2225.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)93~194~3231140~246 Queue Length 95th (ft)#184#336#506#24813#413 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)4841923853031451287 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.911.551.370.880.171.40 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)56307632894664710515423813019367 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.991.000.850.98 Flt Protected0.990.951.000.981.000.98 Satd. Flow (prot)272714131462145722241414 Flt Permitted0.560.501.000.681.000.64 Satd. Flow (perm)1540739146210042224918 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)58316652984804810815924513419969 RTOR Reduction (vph)0200050001070100 Lane Group Flow (vph)041902985230026713803920 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)22.019.019.022.044.522.0 Effective Green, g (s)22.019.019.022.041.022.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.260.260.300.560.30 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4641923813031249277 v/s Ratio Prot0.360.06 v/s Ratio Permc0.27c0.400.27c0.43 v/c Ratio0.901.551.370.880.111.41 Uniform Delay, d124.527.027.024.37.525.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d223.6272.5183.423.90.0206.1 Delay (s)48.1299.5210.448.17.5231.6 Level of ServiceDFFDAF Approach Delay (s)48.1242.528.7231.6 Approach LOSDFCF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay151.1HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization102.5%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)6612814462986319 v/c Ratio0.860.560.240.020.770.44 Control Delay34.946.79.056.019.02.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.70.5 Total Delay34.946.79.056.019.72.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)1418454118527 Queue Length 95th (ft)188#191157m2m64m2 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)9885061859851291722 Starvation Cap Reductn000091137 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.670.560.240.020.820.55 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)3073352734332956309 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.921.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)253327402825141328251201 Flt Permitted0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)253327402825141328251201 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)3163452814462986319 RTOR Reduction (vph)17300000185 Lane Group Flow (vph)48802814462986134 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)23.621.762.61.242.142.1 Effective Green, g (s)23.621.762.61.242.142.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.220.630.010.420.42 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5985951768171189506 v/s Ratio Protc0.19c0.100.160.00c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm0.11 v/c Ratio0.820.470.250.120.830.27 Uniform Delay, d136.234.28.348.925.818.9 Progression Factor1.001.081.001.250.760.85 Incremental Delay, d28.00.20.30.31.90.3 Delay (s)44.237.08.661.621.516.4 Level of ServiceDDAECB Approach Delay (s)44.219.620.4 Approach LOSDBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay26.0HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization72.3%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)1182462471691273400187576191119796 v/c Ratio0.640.600.691.730.660.700.970.500.720.990.16 Control Delay56.646.521.2355.638.414.0103.411.859.251.910.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay56.646.521.2355.638.414.0103.411.859.251.910.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)798132~58813047121511203066 Queue Length 95th (ft)139119111m#667m195m86#258111m163#538m29 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)23753240897941257119311584811206615 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.500.460.611.730.660.700.970.500.400.990.16 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1791812451674270396185206364189118595 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.901.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923130146843881845156817522848171933121524 Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923130146843881845156817522848171933121524 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)1811832471691273400187208368191119796 RTOR Reduction (vph)0016600221025100060 Lane Group Flow (vph)1182468116912731791873250191119736 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)13.213.213.222.322.322.311.031.915.536.436.4 Effective Green, g (s)13.213.213.222.322.322.311.031.915.536.436.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.130.130.130.220.220.220.110.320.160.360.36 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1844131949794113501939092661206555 v/s Ratio Protc0.080.080.06c0.390.150.11c0.110.110.11c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.640.600.421.730.660.510.970.360.720.990.06 Uniform Delay, d141.240.939.938.935.434.144.326.240.231.720.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.880.880.801.001.001.210.962.03 Incremental Delay, d25.61.50.5329.92.50.854.80.111.720.60.2 Delay (s)46.842.440.4364.133.627.999.226.360.550.942.1 Level of ServiceDDDFCCFCEDD Approach Delay (s)42.4269.144.151.6 Approach LOSDFDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay147.9HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization95.9%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)94103552105765351242174421110 v/c Ratio0.390.520.710.450.751.000.580.460.010.780.96 Control Delay44.145.211.844.442.4559.737.729.528.934.523.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay44.145.211.844.442.4559.737.729.528.934.523.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)286325611690124833196178 Queue Length 95th (ft)529540114209#20188141m3m197m147 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323791000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)350438105223410873106710805025681156 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.270.240.520.450.701.000.480.390.010.780.96 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)92101541103750350227713574331088 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.971.000.881.000.911.000.970.951.001.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.951.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)31831827261115565036156833353189158317922619 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)31831827261115565036156833353189158317922619 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)94103552105765351228313874421110 RTOR Reduction (vph)00492003065000327 Lane Group Flow (vph)9410360105765051235607442783 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtNASplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)6.410.810.815.920.30.025.625.631.731.731.7 Effective Green, g (s)6.410.810.815.920.30.025.625.631.731.731.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.060.110.110.160.200.000.260.260.320.320.32 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)20419728224710220854816502568830 v/s Ratio Prot0.03c0.060.07c0.15c0.150.110.000.25 v/s Ratio Perm0.02c0.30 v/c Ratio0.460.520.210.430.750.000.600.440.010.780.94 Uniform Delay, d145.142.240.737.937.550.032.731.223.431.033.3 Progression Factor0.910.891.931.001.001.001.081.131.060.991.00 Incremental Delay, d20.51.00.10.42.70.02.81.50.00.62.6 Delay (s)41.738.678.638.440.150.038.136.924.831.335.8 Level of ServiceDDEDDDDDCCD Approach Delay (s)68.539.937.634.5 Approach LOSEDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay42.5HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization77.8%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)29929823219141482352121744334 v/c Ratio0.800.780.300.760.150.930.350.612.121.00 Control Delay50.048.74.456.910.855.925.260.5537.165.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay50.048.74.456.910.855.925.260.5537.165.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)1871860122031610678~39357 Queue Length 95th (ft)2572542718627#682162m#154#512m#240 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5235319963663835161000197351335 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.570.560.230.520.110.930.350.612.121.00 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)509702257601054546832715117722 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.950.880.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.970.991.001.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.910.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.961.000.981.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715392440140713581597316315973195 Flt Permitted0.950.961.000.981.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715392440140713581597316315973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)525722327801084648233715121744 RTOR Reduction (vph)001740103403000 Lane Group Flow (vph)299298580190074823490121744 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitProtProtProt Protected Phases443331652 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)24.824.824.817.917.932.331.512.311.0 Effective Green, g (s)24.824.824.817.917.932.331.512.311.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.250.250.250.180.180.320.320.120.11 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)376382605252243516996196351 v/s Ratio Protc0.200.19c0.140.01c0.300.110.08c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.800.780.100.750.030.930.350.622.12 Uniform Delay, d135.235.129.039.033.932.826.441.644.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.700.811.161.05 Incremental Delay, d210.49.20.010.80.024.01.03.4511.8 Delay (s)45.644.229.049.833.946.822.451.5558.6 Level of ServiceDDCDCDCDF Approach Delay (s)40.547.036.5384.9 Approach LOSDDDF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay173.4HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization78.5%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)324 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1372 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1372 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)334 RTOR Reduction (vph)184 Lane Group Flow (vph)150 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)11.0 Effective Green, g (s)11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.11 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)151 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.11 v/c Ratio0.99 Uniform Delay, d144.5 Progression Factor1.22 Incremental Delay, d264.6 Delay (s)118.8 Level of ServiceF Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) PMSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,017vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,110veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,692pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume7,833pcph11,750pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume859pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,449pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,65.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.62 Density,D22.3pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,213vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,898veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,821pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,564pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,64.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.67 Density,D24.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,445vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,959veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,072pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,018pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,59.6mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.86 Density,D33.9pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,850vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,066veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,511pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,128pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,57.5mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.91 Density,D37.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,5488976650vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,7232361750veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,1009587210pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.191 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,679lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,390lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 284 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC608lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 1,998lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.389 Averageweavingspeed,S35.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S44.5mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S42.5mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D41.3pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.87 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,779pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c9,830vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,835pcph11,750pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume8,083pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume958pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume711pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003004,447ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0252,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.871.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,6371,2138080vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,7473192130veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v7,1961,2968760pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.232 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,172lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,165lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 936 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,064lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,230lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.801 Averageweavingspeed,S42.8mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S38.1mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S39.1mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.16 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v9,368pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,874vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,091pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume8,524pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,296pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume863pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503004,864ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0282,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.161.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,1291,9891,721574vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,613523453151veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,6452,1251,866613pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.355 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,992lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC3,848lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 116 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC681lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,530lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S22.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.66 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,250pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c6,572vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,552pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume8,838pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume2,738pcph2,100pcphYes Offrampvolume2,452pcph2,100pcphYes LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803006,179ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,8712,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.661.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,408vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,213veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,116pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume8,640pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume475pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,279pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,54.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.97 Density,D42.2pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,963vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,095veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,633pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,158pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,56.8mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.92 Density,D38.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,693vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,288veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,425pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,645pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume780pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,356pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.00 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V10,800vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,842veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v11,709pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume10,902pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume807pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,927pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.25 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V11,555vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,041veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v12,528pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,132pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.33 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V8,8751,925548200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,33550714453veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v9,6222,057594214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.212 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,651lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,519lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 649 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,435lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,954lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.603 Averageweavingspeed,S34.2mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S30.9mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S31.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.55 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v12,487pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,841vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume10,250pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume11,721pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume2,270pcph2,000pcphYes Offrampvolume799pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303004,662ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0192,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.551.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V9,8152,6041,740250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,58368545866veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v10,6412,7821,887267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.300 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 4,669lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC4,631lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,244 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,786lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 6,416lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035) TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.526 Averageweavingspeed,S34.8mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S12.7mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S15.7mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.98 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v15,577pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,639vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume12,573pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume13,496pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume3,049pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume2,126pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703005,581ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9672,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.981.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Cumulative (2035) With Project AM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)21211543520270340 v/c Ratio0.890.221.260.040.730.67 Control Delay61.35.4163.711.032.026.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay61.35.4163.711.032.026.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)730~204290104 Queue Length 95th (ft)#18631#35715m#164#191 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)239519345445368505 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.890.221.260.040.730.67 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)631431121622601941182391226751 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)183515831828158318111820 Flt Permitted0.471.000.671.000.710.99 Satd. Flow (perm)87015831256158313021799 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)651471151672682042188401227553 RTOR Reduction (vph)008300901000110 Lane Group Flow (vph)0212320435110260003290 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)239435345435358495 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.240.02c0.350.01c0.20c0.18 v/c Ratio0.890.071.260.020.730.66 Uniform Delay, d120.916.121.815.919.719.3 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.951.00 Incremental Delay, d235.00.3138.70.111.86.9 Delay (s)55.916.4160.516.030.526.2 Level of ServiceEBFBCC Approach Delay (s)42.0154.130.526.2 Approach LOSDFCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay72.6HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)16296226526454665 v/c Ratio0.700.550.280.520.770.19 Control Delay57.318.013.748.745.39.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay57.318.013.748.745.39.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)9721386901710 Queue Length 95th (ft)#179273138m9423135 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)2531779965563773377 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.640.540.270.470.710.17 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)00157933192651201360053063 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.971.000.950.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.94 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156533351788347234381452 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156533351788347234381452 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)00162962198671241400054665 RTOR Reduction (vph)00001100000052 Lane Group Flow (vph)00162962254002640054613 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)14.752.752.714.720.620.6 Effective Green, g (s)14.752.752.714.720.620.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.150.530.530.150.210.21 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2301758942510708299 v/s Ratio Protc0.10c0.290.140.08c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.700.550.270.520.770.04 Uniform Delay, d140.615.713.039.437.531.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.191.001.00 Incremental Delay, d210.11.20.70.65.20.1 Delay (s)50.616.913.747.642.731.9 Level of ServiceDBBDDC Approach Delay (s)50.616.347.641.5 Approach LOSDBDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay29.2HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)31720823243160 v/c Ratio0.700.850.060.220.14 Control Delay28.553.27.33.45.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay28.553.27.33.45.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)1098601719 Queue Length 95th (ft)15713713m4556 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)89850981411111169 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.410.030.220.14 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2519785961062239102951411329 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.000.850.950.97 Flt Protected1.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17861819158317471808 Flt Permitted0.970.541.000.940.98 Satd. Flow (perm)17301005158316631770 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)2620388991092340105981411630 RTOR Reduction (vph)030000170200070 Lane Group Flow (vph)02870020860223001530 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)17.117.117.145.945.9 Effective Green, g (s)17.117.117.145.945.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.240.240.660.66 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)42324638710901161 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.17c0.210.00c0.130.09 v/c Ratio0.680.850.010.200.13 Uniform Delay, d124.025.220.14.84.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.621.00 Incremental Delay, d23.421.70.00.40.2 Delay (s)27.346.920.13.34.8 Level of ServiceCDCAA Approach Delay (s)27.344.23.34.8 Approach LOSCDAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay21.5HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization59.6%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)881722838101108 v/c Ratio0.550.430.250.570.43 Control Delay50.12.28.254.913.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay50.12.28.254.913.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)565486620 Queue Length 95th (ft)m75m6916011148 Internal Link Dist (ft)331860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22440383298309360 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.390.430.250.330.30 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)8516707654898105 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940468017191496 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940468017191496 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)88172278949101108 RTOR Reduction (vph)0030097 Lane Group Flow (vph)881722835010111 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)8.181.769.610.310.3 Effective Green, g (s)8.181.769.610.310.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.080.820.700.100.10 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)13940363257177154 v/s Ratio Protc0.05c0.350.18c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.630.430.260.570.07 Uniform Delay, d144.52.65.642.740.5 Progression Factor0.920.671.261.001.00 Incremental Delay, d25.50.30.22.70.1 Delay (s)46.62.07.345.540.6 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)4.27.343.0 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay7.9HCM Level of ServiceA HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization44.4%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)1785274783431022 v/c Ratio0.730.240.180.600.92 Control Delay21.029.68.733.336.9 Queue Delay1.00.00.00.0110.1 Total Delay22.029.68.733.3147.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)257929181271 Queue Length 95th (ft)3062436296#456 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)245213829235731116 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn378000297 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.860.200.160.601.25 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1460307274733401012 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)47601719471516412651 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)47601719471516412651 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)1475310274783431022 RTOR Reduction (vph)330000189 Lane Group Flow (vph)1752027478343833 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)48.94.257.134.934.9 Effective Green, g (s)48.94.257.134.934.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.490.040.570.350.35 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2328722692573925 v/s Ratio Protc0.37c0.020.100.21 v/s Ratio Permc0.31 v/c Ratio0.750.380.180.600.90 Uniform Delay, d120.746.610.226.830.9 Progression Factor1.000.560.871.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.11.20.11.111.5 Delay (s)22.927.29.027.942.3 Level of ServiceCCACD Approach Delay (s)22.910.038.7 Approach LOSCAD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay27.0HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization78.4%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)2512162136254405107149956265250 v/c Ratio0.451.250.230.790.660.250.371.871.000.63 Control Delay28.7144.19.260.139.234.623.0414.598.044.7 Queue Delay0.050.80.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay28.7194.99.260.139.234.623.0414.598.044.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)108~6261184866571~56417172 Queue Length 95th (ft)m156#728m33#142112m51m42m#317#334108 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)552173058732716354304065102661014 Starvation Cap Reductn014400000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.451.360.230.780.250.250.371.871.000.25 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24320971322463504310414592725719845 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.970.911.001.001.001.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.971.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.000.981.001.000.851.000.97 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719494014823335465315861766143916623268 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1719494014823335465315861766143916623268 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)25121621362543614410714995626520446 RTOR Reduction (vph)00680200001790250 Lane Group Flow (vph)25121626825438501071497772652250 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtPermProtProtPermProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)32.135.035.09.612.727.123.023.016.011.3 Effective Green, g (s)32.135.035.09.612.727.123.023.016.011.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.350.350.100.130.270.230.230.160.11 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5521729519320591430406331266369 v/s Ratio Prot0.15c0.44c0.080.080.070.08c0.160.07 v/s Ratio Perm0.05c0.54 v/c Ratio0.451.250.130.790.650.250.372.351.000.61 Uniform Delay, d127.032.522.144.241.528.532.438.542.042.3 Progression Factor0.950.921.160.930.861.140.690.911.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.1115.70.311.95.50.00.0606.653.72.1 Delay (s)25.9145.626.053.041.432.622.4641.595.744.3 Level of ServiceCFCDDCCFFD Approach Delay (s)127.445.9511.670.8 Approach LOSFDFE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay205.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization123.6%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)72742055322249 v/c Ratio0.940.620.070.480.38 Control Delay39.117.35.217.720.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay39.117.35.217.720.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)26611959198 Queue Length 95th (ft)#50420920162165 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)787690829675653 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.920.610.070.480.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)109530671013075329190933416246 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.991.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.990.991.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)18251840158317791803 Flt Permitted0.830.721.000.960.93 Satd. Flow (perm)15201341158317141682 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)112546691043165530196963516747 RTOR Reduction (vph)050001502200120 Lane Group Flow (vph)072200420400300002370 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)35.335.335.326.726.7 Effective Green, g (s)35.335.335.326.726.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.500.500.500.380.38 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)767676798654642 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.470.310.03c0.180.14 v/c Ratio0.940.620.050.460.37 Uniform Delay, d116.412.58.816.215.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.24 Incremental Delay, d219.62.00.02.31.6 Delay (s)36.014.58.918.620.9 Level of ServiceDBABC Approach Delay (s)36.013.918.620.9 Approach LOSDBBC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay24.8HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization90.6%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)7207833047174149 v/c Ratio0.740.090.380.050.330.25 Control Delay16.95.07.63.016.110.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay16.95.07.63.016.110.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)18275404322 Queue Length 95th (ft)30924m39m08758 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)969859872863524586 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.740.090.380.050.330.25 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)33665763328746668319285858 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.95 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185815831853158317991745 Flt Permitted0.981.000.881.000.840.93 Satd. Flow (perm)181715831635158315491638 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)34686783429647688620296060 RTOR Reduction (vph)001400190800400 Lane Group Flow (vph)0720640330280166001090 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)969844872844516546 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.400.040.200.02c0.110.07 v/c Ratio0.740.080.380.030.320.20 Uniform Delay, d110.86.88.26.714.914.3 Progression Factor1.001.000.880.981.001.00 Incremental Delay, d25.10.20.10.01.60.8 Delay (s)16.07.07.36.516.615.1 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)15.17.216.615.1 Approach LOSBABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay13.3HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.6%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)8526535838162446 v/c Ratio1.100.091.620.050.220.62 Control Delay79.610.4320.16.08.616.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay79.610.4320.16.08.616.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)~3386~193325134 Queue Length 95th (ft)#547m20#2651657m206 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)775696221700738714 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.100.091.620.050.220.62 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5077663572903723874710226269 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.98 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185715831848158317751802 Flt Permitted0.961.000.271.000.920.89 Satd. Flow (perm)17881583509158316451620 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)5280065592993824904810527071 RTOR Reduction (vph)0010001402600110 Lane Group Flow (vph)0852550358240137004350 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)775686221686713702 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.480.03c0.700.020.08c0.27 v/c Ratio1.100.081.620.030.190.62 Uniform Delay, d117.010.017.09.810.513.2 Progression Factor0.871.261.001.001.001.05 Incremental Delay, d260.40.2298.80.10.62.6 Delay (s)75.212.8315.89.911.116.4 Level of ServiceEBFABB Approach Delay (s)70.7286.511.116.4 Approach LOSEFBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay97.6HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization107.7%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)98120627222190783936574160 v/c Ratio1.690.371.431.910.501.261.370.410.24 Control Delay341.711.2257.9465.826.5157.9207.021.45.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay341.711.2257.9465.826.5157.9207.021.45.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)~92133~125~22312~234~4171365 Queue Length 95th (ft)#116190#209#37661m#302#547188m39 Internal Link Dist (ft)585186328103 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)5825531901161806236831392680 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000180 Storage Cap Reductn000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.690.371.431.910.501.261.370.420.24 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)325627200264214870539220908557155 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.910.970.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.981.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.850.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.981.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)161713042717166013814151262630941316 Flt Permitted0.981.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)161713042717166013814151262630941316 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)335646206272221900556227936574160 RTOR Reduction (vph)008300840000088 Lane Group Flow (vph)098112327222160783093657472 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtPerm Protected Phases8877652 Permitted Phases872 Actuated Green, G (s)36.036.07.07.07.015.026.045.045.0 Effective Green, g (s)36.036.07.07.07.015.026.045.045.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.360.360.070.070.070.150.260.450.45 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)582469190116976236831392592 v/s Ratio Protc0.610.10c0.13c0.19c0.360.19 v/s Ratio Perm0.090.000.05 v/c Ratio1.690.261.431.910.061.261.370.410.12 Uniform Delay, d132.022.646.546.543.442.537.018.616.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.041.041.640.811.001.091.84 Incremental Delay, d2315.90.2221.6437.50.3126.2175.50.90.4 Delay (s)347.922.8269.8485.871.4160.6212.421.229.9 Level of ServiceFCFFEFFCC Approach Delay (s)291.5321.1160.6129.2 Approach LOSFFFF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay207.1HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization128.3%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)023856171400 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)024882176700 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume8824412649 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol8824412649 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10096100 cM capacity (veh/h)285564156 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2NB 3 Volume Total245888831178 Volume Left0000 Volume Right2405891178 cSH564170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.040.350.520.69 Queue Length 95th (ft)3000 Control Delay (s)11.70.00.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)11.70.0 Approach LOSB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)715222250219280455 v/c Ratio1.251.510.650.650.201.64 Control Delay151.0287.732.433.33.4325.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay151.0287.732.433.33.4325.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)~211~142978513~305 Queue Length 95th (ft)#318#270#177#17628#479 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)5731473853351411278 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.251.510.650.650.201.64 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24547122215214287713627218921141 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.981.000.850.99 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.000.98 Satd. Flow (prot)272514131455146122241430 Flt Permitted0.670.381.000.751.000.62 Satd. Flow (perm)1819565145511132224906 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)25564126222221297914028019521842 RTOR Reduction (vph)02500700062050 Lane Group Flow (vph)069002222430021921804500 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)22.019.019.022.044.522.0 Effective Green, g (s)22.019.019.022.041.022.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.260.260.300.560.30 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5481473793351249273 v/s Ratio Prot0.170.10 v/s Ratio Permc0.38c0.390.20c0.50 v/c Ratio1.261.510.640.650.171.65 Uniform Delay, d125.527.024.022.27.825.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d2130.7261.42.83.50.0307.8 Delay (s)156.2288.426.825.77.8333.3 Level of ServiceFFCCAF Approach Delay (s)156.2149.815.6333.3 Approach LOSFFBF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay159.7HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization91.4%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)87913732122755276 v/c Ratio0.930.230.200.270.780.47 Control Delay39.434.99.849.934.88.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.10.0 Total Delay39.434.99.849.934.98.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)19642311025117 Queue Length 95th (ft)#311m67m67m24m276m50 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)10195871569821076625 Starvation Cap Reductn0000180 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.860.230.200.270.710.44 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)42742613331121732268 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.931.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)254226492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)254226492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)44043913732122755276 RTOR Reduction (vph)18800000185 Lane Group Flow (vph)69101373212275591 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)30.024.555.02.432.932.9 Effective Green, g (s)30.024.555.02.432.932.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.240.550.020.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)763649150233898382 v/s Ratio Protc0.270.05c0.120.02c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm0.08 v/c Ratio0.910.210.210.670.840.24 Uniform Delay, d133.630.111.548.431.124.4 Progression Factor1.000.980.790.971.042.24 Incremental Delay, d214.00.00.325.37.11.1 Delay (s)47.729.69.472.139.455.7 Level of ServiceDCAEDE Approach Delay (s)47.715.444.3 Approach LOSDBD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay40.0HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)8.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization68.0%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)12429514353123823421597124684678 v/c Ratio0.640.660.440.560.600.470.801.09dr0.610.820.15 Control Delay55.647.710.836.740.914.361.731.630.630.34.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay55.647.710.836.740.914.361.731.630.630.34.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)831000121155481321401642953 Queue Length 95th (ft)14313952156228105#222#303m#233m#481m13 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)251583382113147556031510524031028524 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.490.510.370.470.500.420.680.920.610.820.15 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)13727814252623623221316080124483877 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.881.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923237146843881845156817522700166232021471 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923237146843881845156817522700166232021471 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)13828114353123823421516280924684678 RTOR Reduction (vph)0012300164042200053 Lane Group Flow (vph)1242952053123870215549024684625 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)13.813.813.821.521.521.515.423.324.332.232.2 Effective Green, g (s)13.813.813.821.521.521.515.423.324.332.232.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.140.140.140.220.220.220.150.230.240.320.32 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1924472039433973372706294041031474 v/s Ratio Prot0.09c0.090.010.12c0.130.040.12c0.200.15c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.650.660.100.560.600.210.801.09dr0.610.820.05 Uniform Delay, d140.840.937.735.135.432.340.836.933.631.223.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.841.001.000.680.630.55 Incremental Delay, d25.52.70.10.72.30.314.012.44.24.70.1 Delay (s)46.343.637.735.737.759.754.849.327.324.513.0 Level of ServiceDDDDDEDDCCB Approach Delay (s)42.741.850.324.3 Approach LOSDDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay39.3HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)13.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)56125253624108750519266198402 v/c Ratio1.150.530.490.240.191.000.361.370.030.730.55 Control Delay118.134.88.049.738.6374.422.3188.545.067.218.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay118.134.88.049.738.6374.422.3188.545.067.218.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)~234163201524090~757013339 Queue Length 95th (ft)m#336m206m724136#31m91m#515m10m169m74 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323761000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)48848310911241058713881410306347819 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.150.520.490.190.101.000.361.370.020.570.49 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)55024752524106749511017876194394 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.971.000.881.000.911.000.970.951.001.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.941.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)31831827263815565036156833353123153117332482 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)31831827263815565036156833353123153117332482 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)56125253624108750511238036198402 RTOR Reduction (vph)003960070116000339 Lane Group Flow (vph)56125214024108050518100619863 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtNASplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)15.326.126.13.013.80.039.239.215.715.715.7 Effective Green, g (s)15.326.126.13.013.80.039.239.215.715.715.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.150.260.260.030.140.000.390.390.160.160.16 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)48747768947695013071224240272390 v/s Ratio Protc0.18c0.14c0.020.020.15c0.580.00c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm0.050.03 v/c Ratio1.150.530.200.510.160.000.391.480.030.730.16 Uniform Delay, d142.431.728.847.838.050.021.830.435.740.136.5 Progression Factor0.840.972.381.001.001.001.020.871.361.344.29 Incremental Delay, d282.60.30.03.80.00.00.1216.00.07.20.1 Delay (s)118.331.168.851.638.050.022.4242.548.560.9156.6 Level of ServiceFCEDDDCFDEF Approach Delay (s)82.341.0196.8124.3 Approach LOSFDFF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay148.2HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.11 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization93.2%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)978993459902622630497561124 v/c Ratio1.261.260.340.600.160.970.520.781.600.51 Control Delay150.9154.610.256.916.183.132.589.2314.428.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay150.9154.610.256.916.183.132.589.2314.428.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)~844~8615556015310363~2573 Queue Length 95th (ft)#1154#117210510624#299143m#148#37470 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)7797861344358364232581128351242 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.261.260.340.250.070.970.520.761.600.51 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)18258744519065282192801594544 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.950.880.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.980.981.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.880.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.961.000.991.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715282453137013261597315815973195 Flt Permitted0.950.961.000.991.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715282453137013261597315815973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)18819045920067292262891597561 RTOR Reduction (vph)00870202304000 Lane Group Flow (vph)97899337208803226300097561 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtProt Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)51.451.451.49.79.714.517.77.710.4 Effective Green, g (s)51.451.451.49.79.714.517.77.710.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.510.510.100.100.140.180.080.10 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)7807851261133129232559123332 v/s Ratio Prot0.64c0.65c0.06c0.140.090.06c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm0.150.00 v/c Ratio1.251.260.300.660.020.970.540.791.69 Uniform Delay, d124.324.313.943.640.842.637.445.444.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.640.801.191.12 Incremental Delay, d2124.7129.30.09.20.050.23.523.3321.8 Delay (s)149.0153.614.052.840.977.633.377.4371.8 Level of ServiceFFBDDECEF Approach Delay (s)125.450.152.2287.7 Approach LOSFDDF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay146.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization96.7%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)120 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1370 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1370 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)124 RTOR Reduction (vph)91 Lane Group Flow (vph)33 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)10.4 Effective Green, g (s)10.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.10 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)142 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.23 Uniform Delay, d141.1 Progression Factor1.67 Incremental Delay, d23.3 Delay (s)72.1 Level of ServiceE Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V14,139vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,721veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v15,330pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume12,812pcph11,750pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume2,518pcph2,000pcphYes LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,555pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.09 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V11,782vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,101veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v12,774pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,555pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.09 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V9,616vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,531veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v10,426pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,607pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.11 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,655vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,278veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,384pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,346pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,52.3mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.00 Density,D44.8pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V9,2124042,5700vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,4241066760veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v9,9884322,7860pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.244 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,218lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,928lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 400 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,203lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,131lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W2.464 Averageweavingspeed,S29.4mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S29.2mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S29.2mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.34 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v13,206pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c9,562vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume12,781pcph11,750pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume10,467pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume432pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume2,746pcph2,100pcphYes LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003004,988ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9842,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.341.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,6541,0011,9620vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,0142635160veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,2991,0692,1270pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.278 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,197lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC3,190lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,079 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,291lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,481lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.037 Averageweavingspeed,S39.5mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S28.2mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S30.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.44 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,496pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,730vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume10,442pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,415pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,069pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume2,096pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503005,350ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9902,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.441.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V7,9501,019706235vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,09226818662veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v8,6191,089765251pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.173 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,854lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,710lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 142 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,014lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,724lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S38.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.33 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v10,724pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,839vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume9,404pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume9,739pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,340pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume1,005pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803004,260ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0182,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.331.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V13,348vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,513veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v14,473pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume11,842pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume2,630pcph2,000pcphYes LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,618pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.54 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V10,886vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,865veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v11,803pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,951pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.26 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V11,606vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,054veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v12,584pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume11,815pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume769pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,146pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.34 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V12,343vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,248veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v13,383pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume12,615pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume768pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,346pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.42 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V13,062vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,437veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v14,162pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,541pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.51 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V11,3361,007990200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,98326526153veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v12,2911,0761,073214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.147 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,149lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,018lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 825 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,984lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,002lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.619 Averageweavingspeed,S34.1mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S31.9mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S32.2mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.77 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v14,654pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,038vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume13,384pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume13,402pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,290pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,271pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303003,998ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0692,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.771.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V12,0321,2661,030250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,16633327166veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v13,0461,3531,117267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.156 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,469lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,431lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,518 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC3,077lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 5,508lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodAMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.353 Averageweavingspeed,S36.2mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S28.3mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S29.3mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.90 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v15,782pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c8,081vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume14,186pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume14,439pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume1,620pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume1,368pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703004,096ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0802,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.901.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Cumulative (2035) With Project PM Queues 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)17315976356383441 v/c Ratio1.900.291.900.121.030.88 Control Delay465.75.1436.512.544.041.8 Queue Delay0.00.171.70.00.00.1 Total Delay465.75.2508.212.544.041.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)~990~4389~153147 Queue Length 95th (ft)#20337#62632m#200#300 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)91551401451373504 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn04531001 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.900.312.060.121.030.88 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 1: Miller Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)80911572225345549282491435864 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)182015831836158318191823 Flt Permitted0.181.000.781.000.720.98 Satd. Flow (perm)33215831457158313231796 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)81921592245395649285491436265 RTOR Reduction (vph)0011500150900100 Lane Group Flow (vph)0173440763410374004310 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Effective Green, g (s)16.516.516.516.516.516.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.280.280.280.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)91435401435364494 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.520.03c0.520.03c0.28c0.24 v/c Ratio1.900.101.900.091.030.87 Uniform Delay, d121.816.221.816.221.820.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.801.00 Incremental Delay, d2443.60.5415.50.422.118.7 Delay (s)465.416.7437.216.639.439.5 Level of ServiceFBFBDD Approach Delay (s)250.5408.539.439.5 Approach LOSFFDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay228.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization100.2%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)13936555464442371 v/c Ratio0.330.250.700.690.700.23 Control Delay34.918.027.243.644.810.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay34.918.027.243.644.810.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)67782891901340 Queue Length 95th (ft)14692346m#35617636 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)4231668909937756375 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.330.220.610.690.560.19 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 2: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)001353544301083083160041069 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.971.000.950.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.94 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.000.971.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156533351800347034381451 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156533351800347034381451 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)001393654431113183260042371 RTOR Reduction (vph)00001000000059 Lane Group Flow (vph)00139365544006440042312 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitSplitPerm Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)27.043.443.427.017.617.6 Effective Green, g (s)27.043.443.427.017.617.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.270.430.430.270.180.18 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4231447781937605255 v/s Ratio Prot0.090.11c0.30c0.19c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.330.250.700.690.700.05 Uniform Delay, d129.218.023.032.738.734.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.141.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.60.45.12.33.50.1 Delay (s)29.918.428.039.642.234.3 Level of ServiceCBCDDC Approach Delay (s)29.924.239.641.1 Approach LOSCCDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay32.9HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization68.8%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)25163248399187 v/c Ratio0.380.910.060.520.24 Control Delay11.935.85.812.613.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay11.935.85.812.613.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)5421858346 Queue Length 95th (ft)101#42220m8788 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)712752815771779 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.840.060.520.24 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 3: Miller Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)4015648200413472626398813638 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.970.97 Flt Protected0.990.981.001.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17991833158317931806 Flt Permitted0.760.801.000.980.98 Satd. Flow (perm)13791483158317561782 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)41161492064264827271101814039 RTOR Reduction (vph)0130001301700130 Lane Group Flow (vph)023800632350382001740 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)32.932.932.930.130.1 Effective Green, g (s)32.932.932.930.130.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.470.470.470.430.43 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)648697744755766 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.17c0.430.02c0.220.10 v/c Ratio0.370.910.050.510.23 Uniform Delay, d111.917.110.114.512.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.781.00 Incremental Delay, d20.115.10.01.00.7 Delay (s)12.032.310.112.313.3 Level of ServiceBCBBB Approach Delay (s)12.030.712.313.3 Approach LOSBCBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay20.6HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.9%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)122605290057343 v/c Ratio0.670.150.910.360.76 Control Delay57.51.219.947.416.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay57.51.219.947.416.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)858691350 Queue Length 95th (ft)m116m29m#7046981 Internal Link Dist (ft)331860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22340913193309552 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.550.150.910.180.62 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)118587265815555333 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940468217191494 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940468217191494 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)122605274016057343 RTOR Reduction (vph)00300311 Lane Group Flow (vph)122605289705732 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)10.782.868.19.29.2 Effective Green, g (s)10.782.868.19.29.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.110.830.680.090.09 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)18440903188158137 v/s Ratio Protc0.070.12c0.62c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.660.150.910.360.23 Uniform Delay, d142.91.713.342.642.1 Progression Factor1.060.571.181.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.80.12.30.50.3 Delay (s)50.11.018.143.242.4 Level of ServiceDABDD Approach Delay (s)9.318.142.5 Approach LOSABD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay18.9HCM Level of ServiceB HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization82.1%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)648482014827495 v/c Ratio0.270.400.751.450.43 Control Delay17.652.812.4238.89.6 Queue Delay0.00.075.30.00.0 Total Delay17.652.887.7238.89.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)9828501~73639 Queue Length 95th (ft)124m24m235#100691 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)245713829235721145 Starvation Cap Reductn00119200 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.260.351.161.450.43 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 5: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)516126481994819490 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)47371719471516412651 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)47371719471516412651 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)521127482014827495 RTOR Reduction (vph)430000221 Lane Group Flow (vph)6050482014827274 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeProtPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)48.54.657.134.934.9 Effective Green, g (s)48.54.657.134.934.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.480.050.570.350.35 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2297792692573925 v/s Ratio Prot0.130.03c0.43c0.50 v/s Ratio Perm0.10 v/c Ratio0.260.610.751.440.30 Uniform Delay, d115.246.816.132.523.6 Progression Factor1.381.160.771.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.30.80.2209.20.1 Delay (s)21.255.312.6241.823.7 Level of ServiceCEBFC Approach Delay (s)21.213.6160.1 Approach LOSCBF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay62.8HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization90.6%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)2216361807371692287223123991139 v/c Ratio1.280.370.282.251.032.260.540.290.341.12 Control Delay200.022.24.9597.463.8614.132.111.838.9101.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.0177.20.00.00.00.00.5 Total Delay200.022.24.9597.4241.0614.132.111.838.9101.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)~180890~399~428~310129953~437 Queue Length 95th (ft)#33812235#519#522m#476m196m35107#571 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)172171963332716361274774793261014 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000046100001 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.280.370.282.251.442.260.470.260.301.12 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 6: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)21461717571515449727821611996884221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.970.911.001.001.001.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.971.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.000.991.001.000.851.000.97 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719494014823335468215861766143916623261 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1719494014823335468215861766143916623261 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)221636180737159210028722312399911228 RTOR Reduction (vph)0011907000940220 Lane Group Flow (vph)2216366173716850287223299911170 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtPermProtProtPermProt Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)10.034.034.09.834.08.823.423.416.430.4 Effective Green, g (s)10.034.034.09.834.08.823.423.416.430.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.340.340.100.340.090.230.230.160.30 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)17216805043271592140413337273991 v/s Ratio Protc0.130.13c0.22c0.36c0.180.130.06c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm0.040.02 v/c Ratio1.280.380.122.251.062.050.540.090.361.13 Uniform Delay, d145.025.022.745.133.045.633.629.937.234.8 Progression Factor0.930.881.050.980.981.250.761.651.001.00 Incremental Delay, d2163.60.60.5573.939.8493.30.60.00.370.2 Delay (s)205.422.624.2618.172.1550.126.349.537.5105.0 Level of ServiceFCCFEFCDDF Approach Delay (s)61.9237.8268.399.6 Approach LOSEFFF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay175.2HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization104.8%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)60879358575424 v/c Ratio1.211.110.071.010.66 Control Delay132.288.36.963.121.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay132.288.36.963.121.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)~325~4008~232143 Queue Length 95th (ft)#515#60124#439m189 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)503715822571646 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.211.110.071.010.66 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 7: Grand Ave. & Spruce Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)7141210715761256912801863130971 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.850.950.98 Flt Protected0.990.991.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)18061844158317641813 Flt Permitted0.530.751.000.830.94 Satd. Flow (perm)9551390158314691709 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)7342511016263158942891923231973 RTOR Reduction (vph)011000802600110 Lane Group Flow (vph)059700793500549004130 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)36.036.036.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)36.036.036.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.510.510.370.37 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)491715814546635 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.620.570.03c0.370.24 v/c Ratio1.221.110.061.010.65 Uniform Delay, d117.017.08.522.018.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.92 Incremental Delay, d2114.567.70.040.04.4 Delay (s)131.584.78.662.021.2 Level of ServiceFFAEC Approach Delay (s)131.579.562.021.2 Approach LOSFEEC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay78.2HCM Level of ServiceE HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization136.8%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)54711582988271299 v/c Ratio0.990.130.900.100.480.56 Control Delay55.54.412.44.616.719.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay55.54.412.44.616.719.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)178913276378 Queue Length 95th (ft)#37829m83m2124147 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)550872925858570532 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.990.130.900.100.480.56 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 8: Grand Ave. & Maple Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)69462112617438548133828014368 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.991.001.001.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185115831856158317681779 Flt Permitted0.551.000.931.000.910.85 Satd. Flow (perm)103315831734158316291540 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)71476115637668849137858214770 RTOR Reduction (vph)0028001402700190 Lane Group Flow (vph)0547870829740244002800 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)551844925844543513 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.530.060.480.050.15c0.18 v/c Ratio0.990.100.900.090.450.55 Uniform Delay, d113.96.912.56.915.716.3 Progression Factor1.001.000.660.881.001.00 Incremental Delay, d236.60.21.50.02.74.1 Delay (s)50.57.29.86.118.320.4 Level of ServiceDAAABC Approach Delay (s)43.09.418.320.4 Approach LOSDABC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay22.4HCM Level of ServiceC HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization106.0%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)53211994192365590 v/c Ratio4.630.171.720.130.520.86 Control Delay1652.29.2353.58.715.018.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay1652.29.2353.58.715.018.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)~37511~5201486225 Queue Length 95th (ft)m#412m16#72137155m233 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)115715546699700685 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio4.630.171.720.130.520.86 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 9: Grand Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10141511598815895623959117306149 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.96 Flt Protected0.991.000.991.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)184515831853158318061779 Flt Permitted0.141.000.681.000.870.85 Satd. Flow (perm)26615831261158315871531 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)104428119101840925824661121315154 RTOR Reduction (vph)0029001301200210 Lane Group Flow (vph)0532900941790353005690 Turn TypePermPermPermPermPermPerm Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)115686546686688663 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc2.000.060.750.050.22c0.37 v/c Ratio4.630.131.720.120.510.86 Uniform Delay, d117.010.217.010.112.415.3 Progression Factor0.981.341.001.001.001.04 Incremental Delay, d21641.30.2333.20.32.71.4 Delay (s)1657.913.9350.210.515.117.4 Level of ServiceFBFBBB Approach Delay (s)1357.4320.015.117.4 Approach LOSFFBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay466.1HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio2.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization132.2%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)536143960830264923309421197 v/c Ratio0.960.265.057.161.190.850.730.300.28 Control Delay61.25.11846.62795.7141.542.342.319.26.0 Queue Delay0.00.30.00.00.00.00.00.70.0 Total Delay61.25.41846.62795.7141.542.342.319.96.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)3250~604~1046~1172199812629 Queue Length 95th (ft)#53540m#720m#1263m#257#3201119820 Internal Link Dist (ft)585186328103 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)57656119011622210896831421711 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0130000006510 Storage Cap Reductn000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.930.335.057.161.190.850.450.550.28 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 10: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2922281399318052560719177300408191 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.910.970.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.931.001.000.981.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.001.000.850.971.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.971.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)159913042717166013814225262630941316 Flt Permitted0.971.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)159913042717166013814225262630941316 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)3012351439608302640741182309421197 RTOR Reduction (vph)00930012600000107 Lane Group Flow (vph)0536509608301380923030942190 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtPerm Protected Phases8877652 Permitted Phases872 Actuated Green, G (s)35.135.17.07.07.025.816.145.945.9 Effective Green, g (s)35.135.17.07.07.025.816.145.945.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.350.350.070.070.070.260.160.460.46 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5614581901169710904231420604 v/s Ratio Protc0.340.35c0.50c0.22c0.120.14 v/s Ratio Perm0.040.100.07 v/c Ratio0.960.115.057.161.430.850.730.300.15 Uniform Delay, d131.721.946.546.546.535.239.916.915.7 Progression Factor1.001.000.960.960.900.930.821.081.99 Incremental Delay, d227.00.11835.32787.6241.45.55.20.50.5 Delay (s)58.722.01880.02832.3283.338.238.018.731.8 Level of ServiceECFFFDDBC Approach Delay (s)50.92059.638.227.9 Approach LOSDFDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay944.0HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization121.0%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 11: E. Grand Ave. & 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)096878300 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)097080700 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume7035877 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol7035877 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10099100 cM capacity (veh/h)9261030766 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2NB 3 Volume Total947292538 Volume Left0000 Volume Right90269538 cSH1030170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.010.030.170.32 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.50.00.00.0 Lane LOSA Approach Delay (s)8.50.0 Approach LOSA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)493300566276247431 v/c Ratio1.031.641.470.920.171.61 Control Delay75.4335.8250.862.81.2316.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay75.4335.8250.862.81.2316.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)~117~200~3601190~285 Queue Length 95th (ft)#216#344#549#25913#455 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)4801833853011452267 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.031.641.470.920.171.61 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 12: Baden Ave. & Linden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)58350702914925710716124014620171 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.981.000.850.98 Flt Protected0.990.951.000.981.000.98 Satd. Flow (prot)272914131458145822241414 Flt Permitted0.560.471.000.671.000.59 Satd. Flow (perm)152870214589992224854 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)60361723005075911016624715120773 RTOR Reduction (vph)0190060001080100 Lane Group Flow (vph)047403005600027613904210 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermPermPermcustomPerm Protected Phases1244 24 Permitted Phases1244 Actuated Green, G (s)22.019.019.022.044.522.0 Effective Green, g (s)22.019.019.022.041.022.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.260.260.300.560.30 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4601833793011249257 v/s Ratio Prot0.380.06 v/s Ratio Permc0.31c0.430.28c0.49 v/c Ratio1.031.641.480.920.111.64 Uniform Delay, d125.527.027.024.67.525.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d250.1311.0228.830.50.0304.5 Delay (s)75.6338.0255.855.17.5330.0 Level of ServiceEFFEAF Approach Delay (s)75.6284.332.6330.0 Approach LOSEFCF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay191.4HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization106.8%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)74631357521182339 v/c Ratio0.880.790.320.020.900.46 Control Delay32.547.76.846.548.321.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.012.40.6 Total Delay32.547.76.846.560.622.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)143107421425136 Queue Length 95th (ft)195m#150138m2m225m79 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)10423971777821312734 Starvation Cap Reductn0000137139 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.720.790.320.021.010.57 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 13: Baden Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)33638830455821147329 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.971.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.921.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)252726492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)252726492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)34640031357521182339 RTOR Reduction (vph)23500000187 Lane Group Flow (vph)511031357521182152 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeProtProtPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)24.318.261.91.244.944.9 Effective Green, g (s)24.318.261.91.244.944.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.180.620.010.450.45 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6144821690161226521 v/s Ratio Protc0.20c0.120.210.00c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm0.13 v/c Ratio0.830.650.340.120.960.29 Uniform Delay, d135.937.99.248.926.817.5 Progression Factor1.000.890.671.041.978.79 Incremental Delay, d29.01.60.40.13.00.1 Delay (s)44.935.26.550.955.6153.8 Level of ServiceDDADEF Approach Delay (s)44.916.677.4 Approach LOSDBE Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay52.6HCM Level of ServiceD HCM Volume to Capacity ratio0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization81.2%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)12826326320943375541876882081422100 v/c Ratio0.660.600.611.610.620.780.740.870.481.780.24 Control Delay56.945.911.3301.029.715.458.324.622.0375.35.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay56.945.911.3301.029.715.458.324.622.0375.35.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)85870~7121781031156699~74814 Queue Length 95th (ft)14812569m#577m174m82183128m134m#873m17 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)2515674801302547711315953433800417 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.510.460.551.610.620.780.590.720.481.780.24 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 14: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1832042602073334548185206475206140899 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.901.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923150146843881845156817522802166232021470 Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923150146843881845156817522802166232021470 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)18520626320943375541872084802081422100 RTOR Reduction (vph)0022700246041600050 Lane Group Flow (vph)1282633620943373081872720208142250 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitProtSplitProtProtProtPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)13.813.813.829.729.729.714.413.426.025.025.0 Effective Green, g (s)13.813.813.829.729.729.714.413.426.025.025.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.140.140.140.300.300.300.140.130.260.250.25 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1924352031303548466252375432801368 v/s Ratio Protc0.090.080.02c0.480.180.20c0.110.100.13c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm0.03 v/c Ratio0.670.600.181.610.610.660.740.730.481.780.14 Uniform Delay, d140.940.538.135.130.230.741.041.531.337.529.1 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.930.911.151.001.000.580.670.38 Incremental Delay, d26.61.60.2273.50.20.39.85.82.3351.90.5 Delay (s)47.542.238.2306.427.735.750.947.420.3377.211.4 Level of ServiceDDDFCDDDCFB Approach Delay (s)41.6224.748.1313.2 Approach LOSDFDF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay205.3HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization110.2%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)247103552105765359448375201656 v/c Ratio0.740.520.710.360.791.000.680.550.021.061.62 Control Delay45.740.112.239.844.9559.736.830.330.770.4304.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay45.740.112.239.844.9559.736.830.330.770.4304.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)846326581690137973~344~798 Queue Length 95th (ft)m#121m10073114212#20202157m6m#315m#499 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323761000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)350438105229310583106710734334901020 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.710.240.520.360.721.000.560.450.021.061.62 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)242101541103750358233813575101623 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.971.000.881.000.911.000.970.951.001.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)31831827261115565036156833353220153117332490 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)31831827261115565036156833353220153117332490 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)247103552105765359434513875201656 RTOR Reduction (vph)00492003047000317 Lane Group Flow (vph)247103601057650594436075201339 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtPermProtNASplitSplitPerm Protected Phases52164488 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)10.410.810.818.819.20.026.126.128.328.328.3 Effective Green, g (s)10.410.810.818.819.20.026.126.128.328.328.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.100.110.110.190.190.000.260.260.280.280.28 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3311972822939670870840433490705 v/s Ratio Protc0.080.060.07c0.15c0.180.140.000.30 v/s Ratio Perm0.02c0.54 v/c Ratio0.750.520.210.360.790.000.680.520.021.061.90 Uniform Delay, d143.542.240.735.338.550.033.231.625.835.935.9 Progression Factor0.780.792.171.001.001.001.001.041.041.031.22 Incremental Delay, d26.30.90.10.34.20.03.61.90.032.4405.2 Delay (s)40.234.288.635.642.750.036.934.726.769.4449.1 Level of ServiceDCFDDDDCCEF Approach Delay (s)69.241.935.9357.3 Approach LOSEDDF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay182.2HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization98.8%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)36837423219141482352121744413 v/c Ratio0.840.850.270.760.151.060.390.642.121.09 Control Delay50.650.83.956.910.892.128.163.7536.287.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay50.650.83.956.910.892.128.163.7536.287.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)22823201220~35711180~394~131 Queue Length 95th (ft)3213262718627#698162m#143m#447m#254 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5265321000366375453893188351379 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.700.700.230.520.111.060.390.642.121.09 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)650702257601054546832715117722 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.950.950.880.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.970.990.981.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.910.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.961.000.981.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)151715352444140713261597316315973195 Flt Permitted0.950.961.000.981.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)151715352444140713261597316315973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)670722327801084648233715121744 RTOR Reduction (vph)001650103403000 Lane Group Flow (vph)368374670190074823490121744 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitPermSplitPermProtProt Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)28.828.828.817.917.928.428.111.710.9 Effective Green, g (s)28.828.828.817.917.928.428.111.710.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.290.290.290.180.180.280.280.120.11 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)437442704252237454889187348 v/s Ratio Prot0.24c0.24c0.14c0.300.110.08c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm0.030.01 v/c Ratio0.840.850.090.750.031.060.390.652.14 Uniform Delay, d133.533.526.139.033.935.829.142.244.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.000.730.841.221.07 Incremental Delay, d213.213.40.010.80.059.31.34.1518.9 Delay (s)46.746.926.149.833.985.425.655.3566.4 Level of ServiceDDCDCFCEF Approach Delay (s)41.847.060.1402.5 Approach LOSDDEF Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay185.7HCM Level of ServiceF HCM Volume to Capacity ratio1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization82.4%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7/21/2014 16: 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)401 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1371 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1371 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)413 RTOR Reduction (vph)228 Lane Group Flow (vph)185 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)10.9 Effective Green, g (s)10.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.11 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)149 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.13 v/c Ratio1.24 Uniform Delay, d144.5 Progression Factor1.50 Incremental Delay, d2142.3 Delay (s)209.0 Level of ServiceF Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/GrandSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentI380toSouthAirportBlvdOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,838vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,063veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,498pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N6 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume7,489pcph11,750pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume1,010pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,416pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,65.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.60 Density,D21.8pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenSAirportBlvdRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V6,893vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,814veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,474pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N5 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,495pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,64.9mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.64 Density,D23.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSC C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenGrandramps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,016vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,846veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v7,607pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v1,902pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,61.4mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.81 Density,D31.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSD C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterPointramps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,850vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,066veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,511pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,128pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,57.5mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.91 Density,D37.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N5ln Weavingsegmentlength,L200ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,0429748510vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,5902562240veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,5511,0419230pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.231 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 1,963lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC1,674lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 262 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC495lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 2,169lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentSouthAirportBlvdOnRamptoEGrandAve/IndustrialWay AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.482 Averageweavingspeed,S35.1mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S42.7mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S40.7mph Weavingsegmentdensity,D41.9pcpmpl LevelofService,LOSE Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c0.85 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v8,514pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c9,680vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,489pcph11,750pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume7,621pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,041pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolume909pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength2003004,851ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9942,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.851.00Nod Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L650ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,2081,6428080vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,6344322130veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,7311,7548760pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.281 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,630lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,624lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 875 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC969lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 3,592lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentGrand/AirportOntoOysterOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W0.871 Averageweavingspeed,S41.7mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S34.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S36.5mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.18 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v9,362pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,721vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume7,633pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume8,524pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume1,754pcph2,100pcphNo Offrampvolume863pcph2,100pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength6503005,381ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9882,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.181.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L80ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V6,1291,9891,721574vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v1,613523453151veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v6,6452,1251,866613pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.355 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 3,992lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC3,848lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 116 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC681lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,530lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewayNorthboundUS101 SegmentNorthofOysterPoint AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W#NUM! Averageweavingspeed,S#NUM!mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S22.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S#NUM!mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.66 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v11,250pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c6,572vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,552pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolume8,838pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolume2,738pcph2,100pcphYes Offrampvolume2,452pcph2,100pcphYes LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength803006,179ftYesa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,8712,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.661.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;© šE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentOysterPointBlvdOffRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,418vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,215veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,127pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume8,640pcph9,400pcphNo Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume486pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,282pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,54.0mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.97 Density,D42.3pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOffandAirportOn AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V7,963vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,095veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v8,633pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,158pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,56.8mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c0.92 Density,D38.0pcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSE C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentAirportBlvdOnRamp AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V8,693vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,288veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v9,425pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume8,645pcph9,400pcphNo Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolume780pcph2,000pcphNo Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,356pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.00 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentProduce/AirportOf f AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V10,657vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,804veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v11,554pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolume10,629pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolume925pcph2,000pcphNo LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v2,889pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.23 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayBasicSegment BasicOperationalAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceRamps AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour FlowInputsandAdjustment s Volume,V11,523vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.95 Peak15minvolume,v3,032veh 15 Trucksandbuses6% Recreationalvehicles0% TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E1.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,0.971 f HV Driverpopoulationfactor,1.00 f P Flowrate,v12,493pcph p SpeedInputsandAdjustment s Numberoflanes,N4 Lanewidth12.0ft Rightsidelateralclearance>6ft Totalrampdensity,TRD2.00ramps/mi Lanewidthadjustment,0.0mph f LW Lateralclearanceadjustment,0.0mph f LC TRDadjustment5.8mph Calculatedfreeflowspeed,FF69.6mph S Measuredfreeflowspeed,FFmph S Freeflowspeedcurve65mph CapacityChecksforSegmentswithRamps ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolumepcphpcph Exitingfreewayvolumepcphpcph Onrampvolumepcphpcph Offrampvolumepcphpcph LOSandPerformanceMeasures Flowrate,v3,123pcphpl p Averagepassengercarspeed,mph S Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.33 Density,Dpcpmpl Levelofservice,LOSF C;w©µt;;© ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L330ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V8,7321,925691200vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,29850718253veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v9,4672,057749214pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.225 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 2,806lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC2,674lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 639 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,403lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 4,077lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenOysterOnandMillerOff AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.643 Averageweavingspeed,S33.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S29.8mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S30.6mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c1.55 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v12,487pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,803vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume10,250pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume11,568pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume2,270pcph2,000pcphYes Offrampvolume952pcph2,000pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength3303004,790ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c2,0092,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c1.551.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour Inputs SegmenttypeFreeway WeavingconfigurationOnesided Numberoflanes,N4ln Weavingsegmentlength,L570ft S Freewayfreeflowspeed,FFS65mph Minimumsegmentspeed,S 15mph MIN Freewaymaximumcapacity,c2,350pcphpl IFL TerraintypeLevel Grade Lengthmi ConversiontopcphUnderBaseConditions VVVV FFRFFRRR Volume,V9,7833,2411,740250vph Peakhourfactor,PHF0.950.950.950.95 Peak15minvolume,v2,57485345866veh 15 Trucksandbuses6%3%6%3% Recreationalvehicles0%0%0%0% TerraintypeLevelLevelLevelLevel Grade Lengthmi TrucksandbusesPCE,E1.51.51.51.5 T RecreationalvehiclePCE,E 1.21.21.21.2 R Heavyvehicleadjustment,f0.9710.9850.9710.985 HV Driverpopoulationfactor,f 1.001.001.001.00 P Flowrate,v10,6063,4631,887267pcph p Volumeratio,VR0.330 ConfigurationCharacteristics Numberofmaneuverlanes,N2ln WL Interchangedensity,ID2.0int/mi MinimumRFlanechanges,LC1lc/pc RF MinimumFRlanechanges,LC 1lc/pc FR MinimumRRlanechanges,LC0lc/pc RR Minimumweavinglanechanges,LC 5,349lc/h MIN Weavinglanechanges,LC5,311lc/h W Nonweavingvehicleindex,I 1,240 NW Nonweavinglanechange,LC1,778lc/h NW Totallanechanges,LC 7,090lc/h ALL C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ HCM2010:FreewayWeavingSegment WeavingAnalysis ProjectSSFSALUP FreewaySouthboundUS101 SegmentBetweenProduceonandI380west AlternativeCumulative(2035)PlusProject TimeperiodPMPeakHour PerformanceMeasures Weavingintensityfactor,W1.651 Averageweavingspeed,S33.9mph W Averagenonweavingspeed,S7.0mph NW Weavingsegmentspeed,S9.5mph Weavingsegmentdensity,Dpcpmpl LevelofService,LOSF Weavingsegmentvolumetocapacityratio,v/c2.23 Weavingsegmentflowrate,v16,223pcph Weavingsegmentcapacity,c7,068vph W CapacityChecks ActualMaximumViolation? Enteringfreewayvolume12,548pcph9,400pcphYes Exitingfreewayvolume14,152pcph9,400pcphYes Onrampvolume3,730pcph4,000pcphNo Offrampvolume2,126pcph4,400pcphNo LimitationsonWeavingSegments ActualMinimumMaximumViolation?Note Weavinglength5703005,905ftNoa,b MaximumViolation?Note Analyzed Densitybasedcapacity,c1,9422,350pcphplNoc IWL AnalyzedMaximumViolation?Note Volumetocapacityratio,v/c2.231.00Yesd Notes: a.Inweavingsegmentsshorterthan300ft,weavingvehiclesareassumedtomakeonlynecessarylanechanges. b.Weavingsegmentslongerthanthecalculatedmaximumlengthshouldbetreatedasbasicsegments. c.Thedensitybasedcapacityexceedsthecapacityofabasicfreewaysegmentunderequivalentidealconditions. d.Ifthevolumeexceedstheweavingsegmentcapacity,thenthelevelofserviceisF. C;w©µt;;©ÂšE ‰ ‰ Cumulative (2035) With Project Mitigated Queues 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)21211543520270340 v/c Ratio0.580.191.000.040.800.74 Control Delay24.44.566.70.141.031.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay24.44.566.70.141.031.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)630154095108 Queue Length 95th (ft)12629#3210#208#221 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)367592437563337460 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.580.191.000.040.800.74 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)631431121622601941182391226751 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)183515831828158318111820 Flt Permitted0.611.000.721.000.720.99 Satd. Flow (perm)113215831345158313091798 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)651471151672682042188401227553 RTOR Reduction (vph)0078001401100110 Lane Group Flow (vph)021237043570260003290 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1123 Permitted Phases111123 Actuated Green, G (s)19.519.519.519.515.015.0 Effective Green, g (s)19.519.519.519.515.015.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.320.320.320.320.250.25 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)367514437514327449 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.190.02c0.320.00c0.20c0.18 v/c Ratio0.580.071.000.010.790.73 Uniform Delay, d116.814.020.213.721.120.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.011.00 Incremental Delay, d26.50.341.90.017.710.1 Delay (s)23.314.362.113.838.930.8 Level of ServiceCBEBDC Approach Delay (s)20.160.038.930.8 Approach LOSCEDC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay39.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization74.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)16296226526454665 v/c Ratio0.700.550.280.520.770.19 Control Delay57.318.013.753.145.39.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay57.318.013.753.145.39.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)9721386901710 Queue Length 95th (ft)#179273138m10623135 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)2531778965562773377 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.640.540.270.470.710.17 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)00157933192651201360053063 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.971.000.950.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.94 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156533351788347234381452 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156533351788347234381452 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)00162962198671241400054665 RTOR Reduction (vph)00001100000052 Lane Group Flow (vph)00162962254002640054613 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitNASplitNANAPerm Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)14.752.752.714.720.620.6 Effective Green, g (s)14.752.752.714.720.620.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.150.530.530.150.210.21 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2301757942510708299 v/s Ratio Protc0.10c0.290.140.08c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.700.550.270.520.770.04 Uniform Delay, d140.615.713.039.437.531.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.281.001.00 Incremental Delay, d210.11.20.70.95.20.1 Delay (s)50.617.013.751.442.731.9 Level of ServiceDBBDDC Approach Delay (s)50.616.351.441.5 Approach LOSDBDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay29.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization61.0%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)31720823243160 v/c Ratio0.700.850.060.220.14 Control Delay28.653.57.33.45.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay28.653.57.33.45.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)1098601719 Queue Length 95th (ft)15713713m4556 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)89750981411111169 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.410.030.220.14 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2519785961062239102951411329 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.961.000.850.950.97 Flt Protected1.000.981.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17861819158317471808 Flt Permitted0.970.541.000.940.98 Satd. Flow (perm)17301005158316631770 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)2620388991092340105981411630 RTOR Reduction (vph)030000170200070 Lane Group Flow (vph)02870020860223001530 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)17.117.117.145.945.9 Effective Green, g (s)17.117.117.145.945.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.240.240.660.66 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)42224538610901160 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.17c0.210.00c0.130.09 v/c Ratio0.680.850.010.200.13 Uniform Delay, d124.025.220.14.84.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.621.00 Incremental Delay, d23.422.20.00.40.2 Delay (s)27.447.420.13.34.8 Level of ServiceCDCAA Approach Delay (s)27.444.73.34.8 Approach LOSCDAA Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay21.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization59.6%ICU Level of ServiceB Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)881722838101108 v/c Ratio0.550.430.250.570.43 Control Delay51.32.17.355.013.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay51.32.17.355.013.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)565377620 Queue Length 95th (ft)m78m7312111148 Internal Link Dist (ft)331860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22440373297309359 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.390.430.250.330.30 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)8516707654898105 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940468017191496 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940468017191496 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)88172278949101108 RTOR Reduction (vph)0030097 Lane Group Flow (vph)881722835010111 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtNANANAPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)8.181.769.610.310.3 Effective Green, g (s)8.181.769.610.310.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.080.820.700.100.10 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)13940353257177154 v/s Ratio Protc0.05c0.350.18c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.630.430.260.570.07 Uniform Delay, d144.52.65.642.740.5 Progression Factor0.930.661.121.001.00 Incremental Delay, d25.90.30.22.70.1 Delay (s)47.42.06.545.540.6 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)4.26.543.0 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay7.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceA HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization44.4%ICU Level of ServiceA Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)1785274783431022 v/c Ratio0.730.240.180.600.92 Control Delay21.156.67.133.337.0 Queue Delay0.90.00.00.013.0 Total Delay22.056.67.133.349.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)2561636181271 Queue Length 95th (ft)3033745296#456 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)245113729235731115 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn359000102 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.850.200.160.601.01 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1460307274733401012 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)47601719471516412651 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)47601719471516412651 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)1475310274783431022 RTOR Reduction (vph)330000189 Lane Group Flow (vph)1752027478343833 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeNAProtNANAPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)48.94.257.134.934.9 Effective Green, g (s)48.94.257.134.934.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.490.040.570.350.35 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2327722692572925 v/s Ratio Protc0.37c0.020.100.21 v/s Ratio Permc0.31 v/c Ratio0.750.380.180.600.90 Uniform Delay, d120.746.610.226.830.9 Progression Factor1.011.170.701.001.00 Incremental Delay, d22.11.20.11.111.5 Delay (s)23.055.67.327.942.3 Level of ServiceCEACD Approach Delay (s)23.09.938.7 Approach LOSCAD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay27.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization78.4%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)2512162136254405107149956265250 v/c Ratio0.411.060.201.120.660.280.311.071.030.64 Control Delay23.461.25.1137.841.734.930.878.1110.844.9 Queue Delay0.016.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay23.477.25.1137.841.734.930.878.1110.844.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)86~5465~94865675~311~9372 Queue Length 95th (ft)m139#655m22#176115110129#450#174108 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200 Base Capacity (vph)61020356792261421376487891257967 Starvation Cap Reductn022900000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.411.200.201.120.290.280.311.071.030.26 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24320971322463504310414592725719845 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Lane Util. Factor1.000.911.000.970.911.001.000.880.970.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.971.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.000.981.001.000.851.000.97 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1719494014833335465315861766253432243268 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1719494014833335465315861766253432243268 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)25121621362543614410714995626520446 RTOR Reduction (vph)00680190001920240 Lane Group Flow (vph)25121626825438601071497642652260 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNAProtNAPermProtNA Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases28 Actuated Green, G (s)35.541.241.26.812.723.727.627.68.011.3 Effective Green, g (s)35.541.241.26.812.723.727.627.68.011.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.360.410.410.070.130.240.280.280.080.11 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6102035610226590375487699257369 v/s Ratio Prot0.15c0.44c0.080.080.070.08c0.080.07 v/s Ratio Perm0.05c0.30 v/c Ratio0.411.060.111.120.650.290.311.091.030.61 Uniform Delay, d124.429.418.146.641.631.228.636.246.042.3 Progression Factor0.870.860.920.910.931.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.135.20.297.15.50.20.162.364.42.1 Delay (s)21.260.317.0139.544.031.428.898.5110.444.4 Level of ServiceCEBFDCCFFD Approach Delay (s)54.280.884.078.4 Approach LOSDFFE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay67.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization91.8%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)72742055322249 v/c Ratio0.940.620.070.480.38 Control Delay38.817.25.217.720.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay38.817.25.217.720.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)26611959198 Queue Length 95th (ft)#50320820162165 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)788690829673651 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.920.610.070.480.38 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)109530671013075329190933416246 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.991.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.990.991.001.000.99 Satd. Flow (prot)18251840158317791803 Flt Permitted0.830.721.000.960.93 Satd. Flow (perm)15231342158317141681 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)112546691043165530196963516747 RTOR Reduction (vph)050001502200120 Lane Group Flow (vph)072200420400300002370 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)35.435.435.426.626.6 Effective Green, g (s)35.435.435.426.626.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.510.510.380.38 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)770678800651638 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.470.310.03c0.180.14 v/c Ratio0.940.620.050.460.37 Uniform Delay, d116.312.58.816.315.7 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.24 Incremental Delay, d218.91.90.02.31.6 Delay (s)35.114.48.818.721.0 Level of ServiceDBABC Approach Delay (s)35.113.718.721.0 Approach LOSDBBC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay24.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization90.6%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)7207833047174149 v/c Ratio0.740.090.380.050.330.25 Control Delay16.95.06.11.116.110.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay16.95.06.11.116.110.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)18274104322 Queue Length 95th (ft)3092454m38758 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)968858872862524586 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.740.090.380.050.330.25 Intersection Summary m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)33665763328746668319285858 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.980.95 Flt Protected1.001.000.991.000.980.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185815831853158317991745 Flt Permitted0.981.000.881.000.840.93 Satd. Flow (perm)181715831635158315491638 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)34686783429647688620296060 RTOR Reduction (vph)001400190800400 Lane Group Flow (vph)0720640330280166001090 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)969844872844516546 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.400.040.200.02c0.110.07 v/c Ratio0.740.080.380.030.320.20 Uniform Delay, d110.86.88.26.714.914.3 Progression Factor1.001.000.580.321.001.00 Incremental Delay, d25.10.21.10.11.60.8 Delay (s)16.07.05.92.216.615.1 Level of ServiceBAAABB Approach Delay (s)15.15.416.615.1 Approach LOSBABB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay12.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.6%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)5286559337162446 v/c Ratio0.141.080.480.420.220.63 Control Delay13.570.928.613.38.617.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay13.570.928.613.38.617.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)10~335157725136 Queue Length 95th (ft)m20#545#6113557m206 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)384803124800738713 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.141.080.480.420.220.63 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5077663572903723874710226269 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.991.000.980.960.98 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)177018421770183117751802 Flt Permitted0.481.000.151.000.920.89 Satd. Flow (perm)8861842287183116451620 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)5280065592993824904810527071 RTOR Reduction (vph)05007002600110 Lane Group Flow (vph)5286005933000137004350 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases1122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)383798124793712702 v/s Ratio Protc0.470.18 v/s Ratio Perm0.060.210.08c0.27 v/c Ratio0.141.080.480.420.190.62 Uniform Delay, d110.217.012.111.710.513.2 Progression Factor1.200.871.001.001.001.07 Incremental Delay, d20.652.212.51.60.62.9 Delay (s)12.967.024.613.411.117.0 Level of ServiceBECBBB Approach Delay (s)63.915.011.117.0 Approach LOSEBBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay38.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization89.7%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)33564620627222190783936574160 v/c Ratio0.981.190.421.250.700.241.111.370.390.23 Control Delay83.4135.516.2186.162.113.898.5207.619.95.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay83.4135.516.2186.162.113.898.5207.619.95.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)213~50050~1151113~213~4141333 Queue Length 95th (ft)#390#715115#200#23752m#280#544178m39 Internal Link Dist (ft)585186328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)5050 Base Capacity (vph)3435424952173153787066821454703 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000220 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.981.190.421.250.700.241.111.370.400.23 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)325627200264214870539220908557155 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.000.971.001.000.910.970.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.931.001.000.981.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.850.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1562164413042717166013894151262630941316 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1562164413042717166013894151262630941316 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)335646206272221900556227936574160 RTOR Reduction (vph)006600730000085 Lane Group Flow (vph)335646140272221170783093657475 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNAPermNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases3874652 Permitted Phases842 Actuated Green, G (s)22.033.033.08.019.019.017.026.047.047.0 Effective Green, g (s)22.033.033.08.019.019.017.026.047.047.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.220.330.330.080.190.190.170.260.470.47 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.52.53.03.03.02.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3435424302173152637056821454618 v/s Ratio Prot0.21c0.39c0.100.13c0.19c0.360.19 v/s Ratio Perm0.110.010.06 v/c Ratio0.981.190.331.250.700.071.111.370.390.12 Uniform Delay, d138.733.525.246.037.933.241.537.017.214.9 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.031.297.950.810.991.101.88 Incremental Delay, d241.9103.50.3145.96.90.165.8176.40.80.4 Delay (s)80.6137.025.5193.255.8264.299.3212.919.728.3 Level of ServiceFFCFEFFFBC Approach Delay (s)101.8152.199.3128.8 Approach LOSFFFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay119.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceF HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization104.2%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 11: 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy./Industrial Wy. & E. Grand Ave. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)023856171400 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)024882176700 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume8824412649 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol8824412649 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10096100 cM capacity (veh/h)285564156 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2NB 3 Volume Total245888831178 Volume Left0000 Volume Right2405891178 cSH564170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.040.350.520.69 Queue Length 95th (ft)3000 Control Delay (s)11.70.00.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)11.70.0 Approach LOSB Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)715222250219280455 v/c Ratio0.920.970.340.460.191.06 Control Delay45.988.912.721.23.686.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay45.988.912.721.23.686.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)173112667714~252 Queue Length 95th (ft)#285#24511614031#432 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)7752297424711439429 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.920.970.340.460.191.06 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24547122215214287713627218921141 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.54.03.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.981.000.850.99 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.000.98 Satd. Flow (prot)272414131454146122241430 Flt Permitted0.940.951.000.771.000.70 Satd. Flow (perm)256214131454114222241029 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)25564126222221297914028019521842 RTOR Reduction (vph)02300600051050 Lane Group Flow (vph)069202222440021922904500 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermNAProtNAPermNApt+ovPermNA Protected Phases65244 58 Permitted Phases648 Actuated Green, G (s)23.513.040.533.049.033.0 Effective Green, g (s)23.513.040.533.049.033.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.290.160.510.410.610.41 Clearance Time (s)3.54.03.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.03.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)7522297364711362424 v/s Ratio Protc0.160.170.10 v/s Ratio Permc0.270.19c0.44 v/c Ratio0.920.970.330.460.171.06 Uniform Delay, d127.333.311.717.16.723.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d218.450.21.20.30.061.1 Delay (s)45.783.512.917.36.784.6 Level of ServiceDFBBAF Approach Delay (s)45.746.111.484.6 Approach LOSDDBF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay46.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization92.3%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)87913732122755276 v/c Ratio0.930.230.200.270.780.47 Control Delay39.534.910.447.236.39.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.10.0 Total Delay39.534.910.447.236.49.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)19639331125320 Queue Length 95th (ft)#311m66m70m25m285m49 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)10185861567811076624 Starvation Cap Reductn0000190 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.860.230.200.270.710.44 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)42742613331121732268 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.981.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.931.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)254226492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)254226492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)44043913732122755276 RTOR Reduction (vph)18800000185 Lane Group Flow (vph)69101373212275591 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeNAProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)30.024.555.02.432.932.9 Effective Green, g (s)30.024.555.02.432.932.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.300.240.550.020.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)762649150232898381 v/s Ratio Protc0.270.05c0.120.02c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm0.08 v/c Ratio0.910.210.210.690.840.24 Uniform Delay, d133.730.111.548.431.124.4 Progression Factor1.000.980.850.901.082.51 Incremental Delay, d214.20.00.331.97.51.2 Delay (s)47.829.510.075.341.062.5 Level of ServiceDCAEDE Approach Delay (s)47.815.847.4 Approach LOSDBD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay41.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization68.0%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)12429514353123823421597124684678 v/c Ratio0.650.660.440.560.600.470.801.09dr0.610.820.14 Control Delay55.847.710.836.941.39.361.831.530.830.42.8 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay55.847.710.836.941.39.361.831.530.830.42.8 Queue Length 50th (ft)831000106136131321401652962 Queue Length 95th (ft)1431395213620673#222#304m#233m#481m8 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130150 Base Capacity (vph)250582381113047555931510534001028541 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.500.510.380.470.500.420.680.920.610.820.14 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)13727814252623623221316080124483877 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.881.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)13923237146843881845156817522700166232021471 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)13923237146843881845156817522700166232021471 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)13828114353123823421516280924684678 RTOR Reduction (vph)0012300164042000053 Lane Group Flow (vph)1242952053123870215551024684625 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitNAProtSplitNAProtProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases4448881652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)13.813.813.821.521.521.515.423.524.132.232.2 Effective Green, g (s)13.813.813.821.521.521.515.423.524.132.232.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.140.140.140.220.220.220.150.240.240.320.32 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.54.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.03.03.03.02.02.02.03.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1924462029433963372696344001031473 v/s Ratio Prot0.09c0.090.010.12c0.130.040.12c0.200.15c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.650.660.100.560.600.210.801.09dr0.610.820.05 Uniform Delay, d140.840.937.735.135.432.340.836.833.831.223.4 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.690.630.67 Incremental Delay, d25.52.80.10.82.60.314.311.84.44.70.1 Delay (s)46.343.737.735.837.932.655.148.527.624.515.9 Level of ServiceDDDDDCEDCCB Approach Delay (s)42.835.649.724.6 Approach LOSDDDC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay37.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.0%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)56125253624108750519266198402 v/c Ratio1.200.670.550.360.280.030.860.880.100.230.24 Control Delay163.064.66.084.265.60.374.424.472.724.64.3 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay163.064.66.084.265.60.374.424.472.724.64.3 Queue Length 50th (ft)~342240023370248640610825 Queue Length 95th (ft)#4633215256570306#11562219059 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323761000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)46641410097263730068921801938541696 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.200.610.530.330.170.020.730.880.030.230.24 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)55024752524106749511017876194394 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.971.000.881.000.911.000.970.951.001.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.000.961.000.991.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.941.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)31831827262215565036151233353117153117332503 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)31831827262215565036151233353117153117332503 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)56125253624108750511238036198402 RTOR Reduction (vph)0042600605900098 Lane Group Flow (vph)561252110241081505186706198304 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNAPermProtNAProtNApm+ov Protected Phases521674385 Permitted Phases268 Actuated Green, G (s)22.030.930.94.113.013.026.597.71.372.594.5 Effective Green, g (s)22.030.930.94.113.013.026.597.71.372.594.5 Actuated g/C Ratio0.150.210.210.030.090.090.180.650.010.480.63 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)466376540424361315892030138371643 v/s Ratio Protc0.18c0.140.020.02c0.15c0.600.000.110.03 v/s Ratio Perm0.040.000.09 v/c Ratio1.200.670.200.570.250.000.860.920.460.240.19 Uniform Delay, d164.054.949.472.163.962.659.922.774.022.611.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d2110.63.70.111.10.10.011.48.39.10.10.0 Delay (s)174.658.549.483.264.062.671.331.083.222.711.6 Level of ServiceFEDFEEECFCB Approach Delay (s)103.267.339.416.0 Approach LOSFEDB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay56.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization93.2%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)1317654459902622630497561124 v/c Ratio0.970.960.500.310.080.930.350.690.840.35 Control Delay43.851.48.313.40.5101.742.285.565.520.9 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay43.851.48.313.40.5101.742.285.565.520.9 Queue Length 50th (ft)51050080302061168726132 Queue Length 95th (ft)#619#723166550#365165147#35092 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)1359683916286323245873182668354 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.970.960.500.310.080.920.350.530.840.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)18258744519065282192801594544 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.990.980.971.000.991.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.880.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.961.000.991.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)290714671408136513201597315415973195 Flt Permitted0.540.531.000.821.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)16488171408112713201597315415973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)18819045920067292262891597561 RTOR Reduction (vph)0012706902103000 Lane Group Flow (vph)131765433202105226301097561 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn Typepm+ptNAPermPermNAPermProtNAProtNA Protected Phases7481652 Permitted Phases4488 Actuated Green, G (s)78.578.578.527.027.021.238.612.429.3 Effective Green, g (s)78.578.578.527.027.021.238.612.429.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.560.560.560.190.190.150.280.090.21 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1360683789217254241869141668 v/s Ratio Protc0.340.33c0.140.100.06c0.18 v/s Ratio Permc0.210.210.240.020.00 v/c Ratio0.970.960.420.090.020.940.350.690.84 Uniform Delay, d125.529.217.746.545.858.740.661.953.1 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d217.124.00.10.10.040.71.110.612.1 Delay (s)42.653.217.846.545.899.541.772.565.2 Level of ServiceDDBDDFDEE Approach Delay (s)40.846.466.363.3 Approach LOSDDEE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay49.0HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization79.1%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)120 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1385 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1385 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)124 RTOR Reduction (vph)65 Lane Group Flow (vph)59 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)29.3 Effective Green, g (s)29.3 Actuated g/C Ratio0.21 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)289 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.04 v/c Ratio0.20 Uniform Delay, d145.7 Progression Factor1.00 Incremental Delay, d21.6 Delay (s)47.3 Level of ServiceD Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project AM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 Queues 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)173159224595383441 v/c Ratio0.570.300.510.570.730.75 Control Delay28.35.524.110.926.528.0 Queue Delay0.00.30.00.00.00.0 Total Delay28.35.824.110.926.528.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)54069120130136 Queue Length 95th (ft)#11438128202m175#266 Internal Link Dist (ft)1394601321251 Turn Bay Length (ft)6060 Base Capacity (vph)3025224421040528585 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0940001 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.570.370.510.570.730.76 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 1: Linden Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)80911572225345549282491435864 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.990.980.98 Flt Protected0.981.000.951.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)182015831770183618191823 Flt Permitted0.641.000.951.000.890.98 Satd. Flow (perm)118415831770183616231798 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)81921592245395649285491436265 RTOR Reduction (vph)001180600900100 Lane Group Flow (vph)01734122458900374004310 Turn TypePermNAPermProtNAPermNAPermNA Protected Phases87462 Permitted Phases8862 Actuated Green, G (s)15.315.315.033.819.219.2 Effective Green, g (s)15.315.315.033.819.219.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.260.260.250.560.320.32 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)3014034421034519575 v/s Ratio Prot0.13c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm0.150.030.23c0.24 v/c Ratio0.570.100.510.570.720.75 Uniform Delay, d119.517.119.38.418.018.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.101.00 Incremental Delay, d27.80.54.12.35.78.7 Delay (s)27.317.623.410.725.626.9 Level of ServiceCBCBCC Approach Delay (s)22.614.225.626.9 Approach LOSCBCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay20.7HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization91.2%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 2 Queues 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp Lane GroupEBRWBLWBTNBTSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)13936555464442371 v/c Ratio0.330.250.700.690.700.23 Control Delay34.918.027.239.444.810.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay34.918.027.239.444.810.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)67782891841340 Queue Length 95th (ft)14692346#37017636 Internal Link Dist (ft)385131284 Turn Bay Length (ft) Base Capacity (vph)4221667909937756375 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.330.220.610.690.560.19 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 2: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave./101 SB/Miller Ave. Off Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)001353544301083083160041069 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.971.000.950.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.000.94 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.861.000.971.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)156533351800347034381451 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.981.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)156533351800347034381451 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)001393654431113183260042371 RTOR Reduction (vph)00001000000059 Lane Group Flow (vph)00139365544006440042312 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%0%5%5%3%0%0%3%0%0%5%5% Turn TypeOverSplitNASplitNANAPerm Protected Phases166114 Permitted Phases4 Actuated Green, G (s)27.043.443.427.017.617.6 Effective Green, g (s)27.043.443.427.017.617.6 Actuated g/C Ratio0.270.430.430.270.180.18 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.03.53.54.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)4221447781936605255 v/s Ratio Prot0.090.11c0.30c0.19c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm0.01 v/c Ratio0.330.250.700.690.700.05 Uniform Delay, d129.218.023.032.738.734.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.60.45.12.33.50.1 Delay (s)29.918.428.035.042.234.3 Level of ServiceCBCDDC Approach Delay (s)29.924.235.041.1 Approach LOSCCDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay31.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization68.8%ICU Level of ServiceC Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 4 Queues 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)25163248399187 v/c Ratio0.380.910.060.520.24 Control Delay11.935.85.812.313.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay11.935.85.812.313.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)5421858746 Queue Length 95th (ft)101#42220m9188 Internal Link Dist (ft)5431394332241 Turn Bay Length (ft)50 Base Capacity (vph)711752814771778 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.350.840.060.520.24 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 3: Spruce Ave. & Miller Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)4015648200413472626398813638 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.000.850.970.97 Flt Protected0.990.981.001.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17991833158317931806 Flt Permitted0.760.801.000.980.98 Satd. Flow (perm)13791483158317561782 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)41161492064264827271101814039 RTOR Reduction (vph)0130001301700130 Lane Group Flow (vph)023800632350382001740 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases44422 Actuated Green, G (s)32.932.932.930.130.1 Effective Green, g (s)32.932.932.930.130.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.470.470.470.430.43 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.53.5 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)648697744755766 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.17c0.430.02c0.220.10 v/c Ratio0.370.910.050.510.23 Uniform Delay, d111.917.110.114.512.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.000.771.00 Incremental Delay, d20.115.10.00.70.7 Delay (s)12.032.310.112.013.3 Level of ServiceBCBBB Approach Delay (s)12.030.712.013.3 Approach LOSBCBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay20.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization85.9%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 6 Queues 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBTSBLSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)122605290057343 v/c Ratio0.670.150.910.360.76 Control Delay60.22.010.847.516.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay60.22.010.847.516.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)7516189350 Queue Length 95th (ft)13342m#7986981 Internal Link Dist (ft)331860300 Turn Bay Length (ft)130 Base Capacity (vph)22340913192309552 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.550.150.910.180.62 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 4: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. MovementEBLEBTWBTWBRSBLSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)118587265815555333 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.000.910.911.001.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.000.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.991.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17194940468217191494 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)17194940468217191494 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)122605274016057343 RTOR Reduction (vph)00300311 Lane Group Flow (vph)122605289705732 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)37 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%10%5%5%5% Turn TypeProtNANANAPerm Protected Phases5263 Permitted Phases3 Actuated Green, G (s)10.782.868.19.29.2 Effective Green, g (s)10.782.868.19.29.2 Actuated g/C Ratio0.110.830.680.090.09 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)18340903188158137 v/s Ratio Protc0.070.12c0.62c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm0.02 v/c Ratio0.670.150.910.360.23 Uniform Delay, d142.91.713.342.642.1 Progression Factor1.001.000.531.001.00 Incremental Delay, d26.90.11.60.50.3 Delay (s)49.91.88.743.242.4 Level of ServiceDAADD Approach Delay (s)9.88.742.5 Approach LOSAAD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay12.3HCM 2000 Level of ServiceB HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization82.1%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 8 Queues 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Group Flow (vph)648482014827495 v/c Ratio0.340.470.951.070.33 Control Delay18.760.537.881.23.0 Queue Delay0.00.044.40.00.0 Total Delay18.760.582.281.23.0 Queue Length 50th (ft)8630438~5899 Queue Length 95th (ft)113#68#561#82039 Internal Link Dist (ft)860284426 Turn Bay Length (ft)70230 Base Capacity (vph)188510321217711482 Starvation Cap Reductn0051200 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.340.471.251.070.33 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 5: E. Grand Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)516126481994819490 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.911.000.911.000.88 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.971.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)47341719471516412651 Flt Permitted1.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)47341719471516412651 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)521127482014827495 RTOR Reduction (vph)400000237 Lane Group Flow (vph)6080482014827258 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)239 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)13 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%10%10%5% Turn TypeNAProtNANAPerm Protected Phases2168 Permitted Phases8 Actuated Green, G (s)37.43.645.047.047.0 Effective Green, g (s)37.43.645.047.047.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.370.040.450.470.47 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)17706121217711245 v/s Ratio Prot0.130.03c0.43c0.50 v/s Ratio Perm0.10 v/c Ratio0.340.790.951.070.21 Uniform Delay, d122.547.826.426.515.6 Progression Factor0.901.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.544.610.853.70.0 Delay (s)20.892.437.280.215.6 Level of ServiceCFDFB Approach Delay (s)20.838.556.0 Approach LOSCDE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay41.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.06 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization90.6%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 10 Queues 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)221636180737169228722312399911228 v/c Ratio0.950.780.371.070.961.160.540.280.301.070.46 Control Delay101.848.97.597.748.9149.946.87.741.091.714.1 Queue Delay0.03.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay101.852.27.597.748.9149.946.87.741.091.714.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)852330~311440~251159059~39235 Queue Length 95th (ft)#16330256#431#553#42422945117#522108 Internal Link Dist (ft)284599325294 Turn Bay Length (ft)170195210200100 Base Capacity (vph)2328134866901764248583561346854492 Starvation Cap Reductn0100000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.950.890.371.070.961.160.380.220.291.070.46 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 6: Gateway Blvd. & E. Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)21461717571515449727821611996884221 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.951.000.970.911.001.001.001.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.961.001.001.001.000.971.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.000.991.001.000.851.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)33353438147433354682158617661435166233881457 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)33353438147433354682158617661435166233881457 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)221636180737159210028722312399911228 RTOR Reduction (vph)00139060009400125 Lane Group Flow (vph)22163641737168602872232999911103 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)183134 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)8144 Heavy Vehicles (%)5%5%5%5%10%5%10%4%5%5%3%5% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNAProtNAPermProtNAPerm Protected Phases52163874 Permitted Phases284 Actuated Green, G (s)8.026.426.423.842.418.827.027.021.429.029.0 Effective Green, g (s)8.026.426.423.842.418.827.027.021.429.029.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.070.230.230.210.370.160.230.230.190.250.25 Clearance Time (s)4.04.24.24.24.24.04.04.04.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2327893386901726259414336309854367 v/s Ratio Prot0.07c0.18c0.22c0.36c0.180.13c0.06c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm0.030.020.07 v/c Ratio0.950.810.121.070.981.110.540.090.321.070.28 Uniform Delay, d153.341.935.145.635.848.138.534.440.543.034.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d245.48.60.753.916.888.00.70.00.250.20.2 Delay (s)98.750.535.999.552.6136.139.234.440.793.234.8 Level of ServiceFDDFDFDCDFC Approach Delay (s)58.266.882.278.2 Approach LOSEEFE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay69.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.0Sum of lost time (s)17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization96.9%ICU Level of ServiceF Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 12 Queues 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)608162689575424 v/c Ratio0.960.450.731.010.66 Control Delay46.616.018.563.121.2 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay46.616.018.563.121.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)22741210~232143 Queue Length 95th (ft)#45192338#439m189 Internal Link Dist (ft)494887220332 Turn Bay Length (ft)30 Base Capacity (vph)632357950571646 Starvation Cap Reductn00000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000 Storage Cap Reductn00000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.960.450.731.010.66 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 7: Spruce Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)7141210715761256912801863130971 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.990.950.98 Flt Protected0.990.951.000.991.00 Satd. Flow (prot)18061770183917641813 Flt Permitted0.660.371.000.830.94 Satd. Flow (perm)1208696183914691709 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)7342511016263158942891923231973 RTOR Reduction (vph)011005002600110 Lane Group Flow (vph)0597016268400549004130 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermNAPermNA Protected Phases4422 Permitted Phases4422 Actuated Green, G (s)36.036.036.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)36.036.036.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.510.510.370.37 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)4.04.04.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)621357945545634 v/s Ratio Prot0.37 v/s Ratio Permc0.490.23c0.370.24 v/c Ratio0.960.450.721.010.65 Uniform Delay, d116.310.813.222.018.2 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.000.92 Incremental Delay, d226.71.33.040.54.4 Delay (s)43.112.016.162.521.2 Level of ServiceDBBEC Approach Delay (s)43.115.362.521.2 Approach LOSDBEC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay34.2HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization131.5%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 14 Queues 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBTEBRWBTWBRNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)54711582988271299 v/c Ratio0.990.130.900.100.480.56 Control Delay55.54.412.14.616.719.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay55.54.412.14.616.719.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)178913476378 Queue Length 95th (ft)#37829m116m4124147 Internal Link Dist (ft)887455269158 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)550871924858570532 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.990.130.900.100.480.56 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 8: Maple Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)69462112617438548133828014368 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.851.000.850.960.97 Flt Protected0.991.001.001.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)185115831856158317681779 Flt Permitted0.551.000.931.000.910.85 Satd. Flow (perm)103315831734158316291540 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)71476115637668849137858214770 RTOR Reduction (vph)0028001402700190 Lane Group Flow (vph)0547870829740244002800 Turn TypePermNAPermPermNAPermPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases111122 Actuated Green, G (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Effective Green, g (s)32.032.032.032.020.020.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.530.530.530.530.330.33 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)550844924844543513 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Permc0.530.060.480.050.15c0.18 v/c Ratio0.990.100.900.090.450.55 Uniform Delay, d113.96.912.56.915.716.3 Progression Factor1.001.000.640.901.001.00 Incremental Delay, d237.10.21.50.02.74.1 Delay (s)51.07.29.56.218.320.4 Level of ServiceDAAABC Approach Delay (s)43.49.118.320.4 Approach LOSDABC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay22.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceC HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization106.0%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 16 Queues 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTNBTSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)104547101932365590 v/c Ratio0.840.690.471.160.520.86 Control Delay52.417.221.0107.815.030.4 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay52.417.221.0107.815.030.4 Queue Length 50th (ft)2914325~41486227 Queue Length 95th (ft)m#52m16268#621155m#368 Internal Link Dist (ft)455585365321 Turn Bay Length (ft)3030 Base Capacity (vph)124796216801699684 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.840.690.471.160.520.86 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 9: Linden Ave. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10141511598815895623959117306149 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.971.000.990.980.96 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.000.990.99 Satd. Flow (prot)177018021770183518061779 Flt Permitted0.151.000.271.000.870.85 Satd. Flow (perm)2871802499183515871531 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)104428119101840925824661121315154 RTOR Reduction (vph)016007001200210 Lane Group Flow (vph)104531010192500353005690 Turn TypePermNAPermNAPermNAPermNA Protected Phases1122 Permitted Phases1122 Actuated Green, G (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.026.026.026.026.026.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.430.430.430.430.430.43 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)124780216795687663 v/s Ratio Prot0.29c0.50 v/s Ratio Perm0.360.200.22c0.37 v/c Ratio0.840.680.471.160.510.86 Uniform Delay, d115.113.712.117.012.415.3 Progression Factor1.111.091.001.001.001.16 Incremental Delay, d226.62.37.187.32.711.4 Delay (s)43.417.219.2104.315.129.2 Level of ServiceDBBFBC Approach Delay (s)21.496.015.129.2 Approach LOSCFBC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay51.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization113.1%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 18 Queues 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. Lane GroupEBLEBTWBLWBTWBRNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)301378960830264741182309421197 v/c Ratio1.130.920.991.110.371.030.841.180.460.38 Control Delay145.075.671.1104.310.798.088.0165.742.67.0 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.60.00.00.00.00.00.2 Total Delay145.075.671.1104.910.798.088.0165.742.67.2 Queue Length 50th (ft)~316321446~86353~263163~1731650 Queue Length 95th (ft)#505#517#594#1114121#353#298#27121861 Internal Link Dist (ft)585186328103 Turn Bay Length (ft)50100 Base Capacity (vph)267411970747716719216262906519 Starvation Cap Reductn000720000058 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio1.130.920.991.230.371.030.841.180.460.43 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 10: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)2922281399318052560719177300408191 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212111111121212 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor1.001.000.971.001.000.911.000.970.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.000.971.001.000.991.000.991.001.000.94 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.000.941.001.000.851.000.851.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.000.951.001.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1562149927171660139243811320262630941299 Flt Permitted0.951.000.951.001.001.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1562149927171660139243811320262630941299 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)3012351439608302640741182309421197 RTOR Reduction (vph)0150009000000139 Lane Group Flow (vph)3013630960830174074118230942158 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)4510 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7311 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%4%4%16%3%3%3%3%5%20%5%5% Turn TypeProtNAProtNAPermNAPermProtNAPerm Protected Phases3874652 Permitted Phases462 Actuated Green, G (s)24.037.050.063.063.023.023.014.041.041.0 Effective Green, g (s)24.037.050.063.063.023.023.014.041.041.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.170.260.360.450.450.160.160.100.290.29 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.52.53.03.03.02.52.52.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)267396970747626719216262906380 v/s Ratio Protc0.190.240.35c0.50c0.17c0.120.14 v/s Ratio Perm0.120.140.04 v/c Ratio1.130.920.991.110.281.030.841.180.460.15 Uniform Delay, d158.050.044.738.524.258.556.763.040.536.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d293.825.326.167.80.241.624.3113.01.70.8 Delay (s)151.875.370.8106.324.4100.181.1176.042.237.5 Level of ServiceFEEFCFFFDD Approach Delay (s)109.279.296.485.8 Approach LOSFEFF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay88.4HCM 2000 Level of ServiceF HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.11 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization103.3%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 11: 101 NB Off-Ramp/Industrial Wy./Industrial Wy. & E. Grand Ave. MovementWBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)096878300 Sign ControlYieldFreeFree Grade0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor0.970.970.970.970.970.97 Hourly flow rate (vph)097080700 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median typeNoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume7035877 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol7035877 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10099100 cM capacity (veh/h)9261030766 Direction, Lane #WB 1NB 1NB 2NB 3 Volume Total947292538 Volume Left0000 Volume Right90269538 cSH1030170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.010.030.170.32 Queue Length 95th (ft)1000 Control Delay (s)8.50.00.00.0 Lane LOSA Approach Delay (s)8.50.0 Approach LOSA Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.7%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 21 Queues 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBTWBLWBTNBTNBRSBT Lane Group Flow (vph)493300566276247431 v/c Ratio0.811.010.750.640.161.04 Control Delay42.191.724.429.51.081.7 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay42.191.724.429.51.081.7 Queue Length 50th (ft)132~1732361220~261 Queue Length 95th (ft)#214#33837921512#446 Internal Link Dist (ft)317560395365 Turn Bay Length (ft)100 Base Capacity (vph)6072987574301565416 Starvation Cap Reductn000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.811.010.750.640.161.04 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 12: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)58350702914925710716124014620171 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.54.03.53.03.03.0 Lane Util. Factor0.951.001.001.000.881.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.991.001.001.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.981.000.981.000.850.98 Flt Protected0.990.951.000.981.000.98 Satd. Flow (prot)272714131457145822241412 Flt Permitted0.830.951.000.711.000.69 Satd. Flow (perm)22691413145710492224995 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)60361723005075911016624715120773 RTOR Reduction (vph)01600500085080 Lane Group Flow (vph)047703005610027616204230 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)139919 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2127 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypePermNAProtNAPermNApt+ovPermNA Protected Phases65244 58 Permitted Phases648 Actuated Green, G (s)23.519.046.537.059.037.0 Effective Green, g (s)23.519.046.537.059.037.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.260.210.520.410.660.41 Clearance Time (s)3.54.03.53.03.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.03.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5922987524311457409 v/s Ratio Protc0.21c0.390.07 v/s Ratio Perm0.210.26c0.43 v/c Ratio0.811.010.750.640.111.03 Uniform Delay, d131.135.517.121.25.826.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d211.253.86.72.40.053.4 Delay (s)42.489.323.823.65.879.9 Level of ServiceDFCCAE Approach Delay (s)42.446.515.279.9 Approach LOSDDBE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay44.8HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0Sum of lost time (s)10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization106.8%ICU Level of ServiceG Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 23 Queues 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. Lane GroupEBLNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)74631357521182339 v/c Ratio0.880.790.320.020.900.46 Control Delay32.664.815.645.036.54.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.017.40.1 Total Delay32.664.815.645.053.94.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)1431049113550 Queue Length 95th (ft)195#1672169#58359 Internal Link Dist (ft)5601472328 Turn Bay Length (ft)16060 Base Capacity (vph)10423971776811312734 Starvation Cap Reductn000015738 Spillback Cap Reductn000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.720.790.320.021.020.49 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 24 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 13: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave. MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBUSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)33638830455821147329 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 12121111111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Lane Util. Factor0.970.970.951.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.971.001.001.001.000.95 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt0.921.001.001.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)252726492731136627311161 Flt Permitted0.980.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)252726492731136627311161 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)34640031357521182339 RTOR Reduction (vph)23500000187 Lane Group Flow (vph)511031357521182152 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3428 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)11 Heavy Vehicles (%)15%15%15%15%15%15%15% Turn TypeNAProtNAProtNAPerm Protected Phases81652 Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)24.318.261.91.244.944.9 Effective Green, g (s)24.318.261.91.244.944.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.240.180.620.010.450.45 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.64.04.64.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)6144821690161226521 v/s Ratio Protc0.20c0.120.210.00c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm0.13 v/c Ratio0.830.650.340.120.960.29 Uniform Delay, d135.937.99.248.926.817.5 Progression Factor1.001.231.571.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d29.02.10.51.318.41.4 Delay (s)44.948.814.950.245.218.9 Level of ServiceDDBDDB Approach Delay (s)44.926.939.3 Approach LOSDCD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay37.1HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization81.2%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 25 Queues 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)12826326320943375541872084802081422100 v/c Ratio0.700.630.181.480.570.361.530.590.350.471.460.07 Control Delay60.547.50.3249.133.50.6310.249.10.719.8234.10.1 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay60.547.50.3249.133.50.6310.249.10.719.8234.10.1 Queue Length 50th (ft)86870~6581780~16867093~6670 Queue Length 95th (ft)1501270#7872840#3051020m113m#768m0 Internal Link Dist (ft)2887324271472 Turn Bay Length (ft)15015022585130200150 Base Capacity (vph)23653514491413594154512268813634469731482 Starvation Cap Reductn000000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn000000000000 Storage Cap Reductn000000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.540.490.181.480.570.361.530.300.350.471.460.07 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 26 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 14: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1832042602073334548185206475206140899 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.54.54.04.04.64.04.04.64.0 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.941.001.001.000.951.001.000.951.00 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.991.001.000.991.001.000.991.001.000.98 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.851.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)139231501449438818451545175233741363166232021482 Flt Permitted0.950.991.000.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)139231501449438818451545175233741363166232021482 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.990.99 Adj. Flow (vph)18520626320943375541872084802081422100 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph)12826326320943375541872084802081422100 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)732 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)444 Heavy Vehicles (%)18%6%10%16%3%3%3%7%17%5%9%3% Turn TypeSplitNAFreeSplitNAFreeProtNAFreeProtNAFree Protected Phases44881652 Permitted PhasesFreeFreeFreeFree Actuated Green, G (s)13.313.3100.032.232.2100.07.010.5100.026.930.4100.0 Effective Green, g (s)13.313.3100.032.232.2100.07.010.5100.026.930.4100.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.130.131.000.320.321.000.070.101.000.270.301.00 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.54.54.04.64.04.6 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.03.03.02.02.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)18541814491412594154512235413634479731482 v/s Ratio Protc0.090.08c0.480.18c0.110.060.13c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm0.180.360.350.07 v/c Ratio0.690.630.181.480.570.361.530.590.350.471.460.07 Uniform Delay, d141.441.00.033.928.10.046.542.70.030.534.80.0 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.000.550.621.00 Incremental Delay, d28.72.10.3221.21.20.6276.61.60.72.1211.10.1 Delay (s)50.143.20.3255.129.40.6323.144.30.719.0232.60.1 Level of ServiceDDAFCAFDABFA Approach Delay (s)27.3182.480.0193.5 Approach LOSCFEF Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay154.9HCM 2000 Level of ServiceF HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0Sum of lost time (s)17.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization110.2%ICU Level of ServiceH Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 27 Queues 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTSBLSBTSBR Lane Group Flow (vph)247103552105765359448375201656 v/c Ratio0.170.110.340.670.960.011.040.520.090.921.03 Control Delay20.617.22.172.473.80.0100.235.757.372.053.5 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay20.617.22.172.473.80.0100.235.757.372.053.5 Queue Length 50th (ft)58410792170~1351455210~699 Queue Length 95th (ft)867832136#3030#19722421#309#928 Internal Link Dist (ft)7323761000765 Turn Bay Length (ft)1407030090 Base Capacity (vph)14179191604207797371573933765761604 Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000 Storage Cap Reductn00000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.170.110.340.510.960.011.040.520.090.901.03 Intersection Summary ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 28 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 15: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)242101541103750358233813575101623 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Lane Width 121212121212121212111111 Total Lost time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.971.000.881.000.911.000.910.951.000.950.88 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.971.001.000.971.000.991.001.000.99 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.851.001.000.851.000.961.001.000.85 Flt Protected0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (prot)31831827264315565036152262573218153132922575 Flt Permitted0.951.001.000.951.001.000.951.000.951.001.00 Satd. Flow (perm)31831827264315565036152262573218153132922575 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.980.98 Adj. Flow (vph)247103552105765359434513875201656 RTOR Reduction (vph)0027400303400017 Lane Group Flow (vph)2471032781057650594449075201639 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)3836 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)523 Heavy Vehicles (%)10%4%4%16%3%3%5%5%10%14%6%6% Turn TypeProtNAPermProtNAPermProtNAProtNApm+ov Protected Phases521674385 Permitted Phases268 Actuated Green, G (s)53.460.460.412.019.019.011.030.41.220.674.0 Effective Green, g (s)53.460.460.412.019.019.011.030.41.220.674.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.440.500.500.100.160.160.090.250.010.170.62 Clearance Time (s)4.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.02.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)14169191330155797240573815155651673 v/s Ratio Prot0.080.060.07c0.15c0.090.140.000.16c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm0.110.000.20 v/c Ratio0.170.110.210.680.960.001.040.550.470.920.98 Uniform Delay, d120.015.716.552.150.142.554.538.959.148.922.3 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d20.00.00.08.922.10.047.42.78.120.217.1 Delay (s)20.115.716.661.072.242.5101.941.567.269.139.3 Level of ServiceCBBEEDFDEED Approach Delay (s)17.470.874.846.5 Approach LOSBEED Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay51.6HCM 2000 Level of ServiceD HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization90.5%ICU Level of ServiceE Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 29 Queues 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp Lane GroupEBLEBTEBRWBTWBR2NBLNBTSBLSBTSBR2 Lane Group Flow (vph)48925323219141482352121744413 v/c Ratio0.830.850.540.840.190.950.230.750.840.78 Control Delay70.382.317.465.92.180.123.791.361.937.6 Queue Delay0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 Total Delay70.382.317.465.92.180.123.791.361.937.6 Queue Length 50th (ft)245254351150462106117380213 Queue Length 95th (ft)#380#4711302013#701153185#508#396 Internal Link Dist (ft)4922395551000 Turn Bay Length (ft)150295100125 Base Capacity (vph)5882984323092945081564212882529 Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000 Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000 Storage Cap Reductn0000000000 Reduced v/c Ratio0.830.850.540.620.140.950.230.570.840.78 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 30 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRWBR2NBLNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)650702257601054546832715117722 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Lane Util. Factor0.910.911.000.950.951.000.951.000.95 Frpb, ped/bikes1.001.000.980.980.971.001.001.001.00 Flpb, ped/bikes1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Frt1.001.000.850.910.851.000.991.001.00 Flt Protected0.950.971.000.981.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)290714771402140213181597315915973195 Flt Permitted0.950.971.000.981.000.951.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (perm)290714771402140213181597315915973195 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.970.97 Adj. Flow (vph)670722327801084648233715121744 RTOR Reduction (vph)0014907103602000 Lane Group Flow (vph)489253830120054823500121744 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51017 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%)13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13%13% Turn TypeSplitNAPermSplitNAPermProtNAProtNA Protected Phases44331652 Permitted Phases43 Actuated Green, G (s)30.330.330.316.816.847.574.115.341.4 Effective Green, g (s)30.330.330.316.816.847.574.115.341.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.200.200.200.110.110.320.490.100.28 Clearance Time (s)3.53.53.53.03.03.54.03.04.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.02.02.02.02.03.03.02.03.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)5872982831571475051560162881 v/s Ratio Prot0.17c0.17c0.09c0.300.110.08c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm0.060.00 v/c Ratio0.830.850.290.760.030.950.220.750.84 Uniform Delay, d157.457.650.864.759.350.221.665.551.3 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00 Incremental Delay, d29.418.90.217.80.028.70.315.19.7 Delay (s)66.976.651.082.559.478.821.980.561.0 Level of ServiceEEDFEECFE Approach Delay (s)65.678.454.862.1 Approach LOSEEDE Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay62.5HCM 2000 Level of ServiceE HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization75.8%ICU Level of ServiceD Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 31 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9/10/2014 16: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB/So. Airport Blvd. Off Ramp/Wonder Color Ln. & 101 NB On Ramp MovementSBR2 Lane Configurations Volume (vph)401 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 Lane Util. Factor1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes1.00 Frt0.85 Flt Protected1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1389 Flt Permitted1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1389 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)413 RTOR Reduction (vph)146 Lane Group Flow (vph)267 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%)13% Turn TypePerm Protected Phases Permitted Phases2 Actuated Green, G (s)41.4 Effective Green, g (s)41.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.28 Clearance Time (s)4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph)383 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm0.19 v/c Ratio0.70 Uniform Delay, d148.7 Progression Factor1.00 Incremental Delay, d210.1 Delay (s)58.8 Level of ServiceE Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary SSF SALUP 5:00 pm 2/14/2013 Cumulative (2035) Plus Project PM - keep WBL at Airport/Grand - MitigatedSynchro 7 - Report Fehr & PeersPage 32 Appendix C Plan+ Application for Study Area and Methodology Validation EIR Transportation Analysis Assumptions South San Francisco Caltrain Station Area Plan EIR April 2014 SF12-0610 · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 4 (7) 25 (119) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 10 (18) 2 (2) 22 (37)114 (519)7 (11) E. Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 11 (13) 1 (2)4 (5) 5 (8)5 (7) 14 (23)3 (6) 0 (1) 5 (7)4 (4) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 2 (2) 9 (11) 6 (8) 396 (186)288 (111) Produce Ave. Industrial Wy.Airport Blvd. 81 (17) 115 (223) 3 (4) 5 (7) 23 (33)35 (125)206 (141) 28 (114)18 (31) Airport Blvd.Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. 16 (77) 131 (57) 30 (43)157 (191) 26 (45)11 (20) 4 (6)1 (2) 7 (13)4 (7)159 (61) 1 (2)47 (80) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave.Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 8 (11)13 (16) 9 (12)6 (8)16 (77) 10 (13)2 (4)105 (535) 59 (57)347 (63) 66 (164)294 (108) 25 (16)56 (95) Spruce Ave.Gateway Blvd. 9 (5)272 (73) 73 (85)110 (344) 19 (24)45 (212) 791 (253)11 (50) 118 (265)54 (83) 36 (146)232 (347)38 (23) Grand Ave. Airport Blvd.Maple Ave. 11 (42) 408 (332)35 (86) 54 (50)34 (38) 16 (16)58 (112) 118 (176)123 (174) 23 (26)16 (54) Linden Ave.Dubuque Ave.Spruce Ave. 8 (9)66 (14)21 (18) 173 (223)99 (186) 33 (40)20 (80)26 (39) 1,100 (563)346 (228) 576 (78)43 (35) 186 (93) 101 NB Off-RampProduce Ave. Industrial Wy.Airport Blvd. 147 (182) 680 (1,200) 52 (91) 12 (26) 209 (80) 179 (278)261 (435) 382 (459) 99 (240)164 (282) 35 (54) Airport Blvd.So. Airport Blvd. Airport Blvd. 22 (2)12 (36) 382 (103) 549 (865)339 (595) 414 (397) 76 (130) 196 (275) 115 (117) 28 (33) 297 (276)344 (73) 52 (141) 125 (184)330 (148) 15 (35) 4 (20)438 (590) So. Airport Blvd. Linden Ave. Linden Ave.Gateway Blvd. 61 (66) 28 (44)6 (8) 164 (183) 209 (210)134 (239) 38 (85) 25 (76)139 (424)