Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout494 Forbes Updated Appendices 2012 (2)APPENDIX 1.0 Comments and Responses to the EIR Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 FORMAT OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This section presents responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR during the review period. Responses are provided for those comments that address the environmental effects of the proposed project. Responses are generally not provided (Comment acknowledged) to comments that state opinions about the overall merit of the project or comments about the project description, unless a specific environmental issue is raised within the context of the specific comment. Those comments are most appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Four comment letters were received concerning the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The Planning Commission also provided comments during its review of the Draft EIR on May 17, 2007. The comments received on the Draft EIR have been grouped by agencies (A), the project applicant (PA), and Planning Commission comments (PC) as listed below. Agencies Al California State Clearinghouse, June 11, 2007 A2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 7, 2007 A3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 19, 2007 Project Applicant PA1 Slough Estates USA, Inc., May 31, 2007 Planning Commission PC1 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, May 17, 2007 Revisions to the Draft EIR that respond to comments on the Draft EIR are presented in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final EIR 0868.001 March 2012 OF Comment LetterA1 0`CEPLq�yN,N F pI OF ,. O� a m STATE OF CALIFORNIA r r GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH �'• z OF \�. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT CAUF�11 .A NOLDSCHWARZENEGGRR CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 11, 2007. JIJAI Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project SCH #: 2006092054 Dear Gerry Beaudin: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 8, 2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These continents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State El I Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 2.0 -2 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445 -0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006092054 Project Title 494 Forbes Boulevard Office /R &D Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project involves the development of the project site with two new office /research and development buildings, totaling 326,020 square feet. It is anticipated that full occupancy of the site would occur by 2011. The project would provide parking for a total of 1,036 automobiles, including a three -level parking garage, constructed at grade level. The parking garage would be a separate structure located toward the southern end of the site, behind Building A. The project would include both public and private landscaped areas throughout the site with plants and design features appropriate for the climate. A mixture of ground cover, vines, shrubs, and trees would be planted along the streets, buildings, sidewalks, and walkways, and in the private open spaces. A water - conserving automatic irrigation system would be installed on the site, in accordance with the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Lead Agency Contact Name Gerry Beaudin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877 -8535 email Waterways Address 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Fax State CA Zip 94080 Project Location County San Mateo City South San Francisco Region Cross Streets Allerton Avenue Parcel No. 111- 001 -07 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 101, 1 -280, 1 -380 Airports SFO Railways UPRR, Caltrain Waterways San Francisco Bay Schools Martin ES, Alls Souls Schools, Siebecker School, Roger Williams Land Use Vacant Z: Planned Industrial (PI) Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic /Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Date Received 04/24/2007 Start of Review 04/24/2007 End of Review 06/08/2007 2.0 -3 Nnta- Rlanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead aaencv. 2.0 Response to Comments Al Terry Roberts California State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 997413 Sacramento, California 95899 -7413 Al -1 The agency's comment is acknowledged. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comment Letter A2 m 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5505 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY (800) 735 -2929 Flex your power! JUN 1 1 2007 Be energy efficient! June 7, 2007 Mr. Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: SM101425 SM- 101 -21.4 — 23.20 S CH #2006092054 FORBES OFFICER &D — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following comments are based on the Draft Environmental i¢1 - 1pact Report (DEIR). Our previous comments still apply and are incorporated here by reference. Highway Operations 1. Table 2.0 -1, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4, page 2.0 -18: The column Significance After 1❑ Mitigation is blank. Indicate what the significance after mitigation would be. 2. Table 2.0 -1, Impact 4.8 -5, page 2.0 -19: Would both mitigation measures 4.8 -5A and 4.8- El 5B Significance After Mitigation be significant and unavoidable, or only mitigation measure 4.8 -5B? 3. Figure 4.8 -2: Southbound (SB) US -101, the Airport Boulevard on -ramp near Oyster Point 3❑ Boulevard is missing from the figure. Please include. 4. Table 4.8 -3, page 4.8 -15: The Thresholds for Average Total Delay per Vehicle (seconds) are transposed for Signalized and Unsignalized. Please correct. 5. US -101 Ramp Methodology, On- ramps, page 4.8 -20: The stated capacity for on -ramps is M too high. Capacity on on -ramp would only be 1800 -2000 vehicles per hour. 6. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -6, page 4.8 -60: Fair share fees should be contributed to ramp metering project to offset this significant impact. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 2.0 -5 Mr. Gerry Beaudin June 7, 2007 Page 2 7. Synchro Analysis, Oyster Point and Northbound (NB) 101 on -ramp, 2015 With Project Mitigated (Second NB land added), PM Peak Hour: This intersection is still LOS F. Project trips are being added to the West Bound (WB) ramp movement and delay for this movement has increased compared to 2015 Without Project. This would not be adequate mitigation for this project. Traffic Forecasting 1. Traffic Impact Analysis with Mitigation Needed under 2025 Cumulative Conditions: The Department believes there will be significant cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Forbes Office and R/D project and several recently approved projects, including Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay, and the Genetech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. The TIA under Cumulative Conditions and associated mitigation measures are required F8 components of the CEQA document. The Department considers 2015 Conditions, a 10 year time frame, as an intermediate term. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions 20 — 30 years after Existing Conditions year is accepted as a long term time frame for cumulative impact analysis. Year 2025 and 2030 would be accepted as long term frame for cumulative impact analysis for this project. Please include long term and cumulative conditions in the document and TIA. 2. Assumptions for growth rate 2015 Future Without Project Conditions: Page 4.8 -25. What is the reference "as documented in approved transportation studies" for using 0.5 o growth rate under 2015 Future Without Project Conditions between 2005 and 2015? What is the growth rate and its underlying assumptions between 2015 and 2025? 3. Traffic diagram at each intersection: Please provide the AM and PM peak hour traffic diagram for 2025 Cumulative Conditions. This diagram should demonstrate traffic per 10 turning movement per intersection during peak hour. Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra fnegan@dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, TIMOTHY . SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves rnobili9ln_oss California" 2.0 Response to Comments A2 Timothy Sable California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, California 94623 -0660 A2 -1 The level of significance has been added to Table 2.0 -1 to indicate that Impact 4.8 -4 would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4. A2 -2 Impact 4.8 -5 would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of only Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5A. A2 -3 Figure 4.8 -2 has been revised to include the southbound on -ramp from Airport Boulevard. The revised figure is presented in Section 3 Revisions to the Draft FIR of this document. A24 Table 4.8 -3 has been revised to correct the transposition of Signalized and Unsignalized under the table heading "Average Total Delay per Vehicle (seconds)." A2 -5 The first paragraph on page 4.8 -20 and Tables 4.8 -6 and 4.8 -10 have been revised to reflect reduced on -ramp capacities in accordance with Caltrans' direction. A2 -6 The City contacted C /CAG and confirmed that ramp metering is a Caltrans project scheduled for fiscal year 2009/2010, and is currently funded 100 percent by Caltrans. No additional fair share funding is required for this scheduled, fully funded future ramp project. A2 -7 Implementation of the proposed project would add traffic to Oyster Point and Northbound (NB) 101 on -ramp intersection. As mitigation, the Draft EIR lists two alternate improvements to address the impact at this location. The first improvement, which involves widening the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, if implemented would improve the intersection operations to an acceptable level. The second listed improvement would bring the intersection back to, or just better than, the base case operation. The City has determined that the first option will be implemented in conjunction with the Genentech Master Plan Project. The project proponent would pay the project's fair share of the cost of the improvement that is implemented at the affected intersection and this fair share payment would adequately address the project's impact at this location. A2 -8 It is the City's intent to update the East of Highway 101 Traffic Study to provide 2025 and 2030 conditions within the next two years. The update has been programmed into the East of Highway 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. A2 -9 The document referenced in the Draft EIR is the Genentech Master Environmental Impact Report. The background growth rate of 0.5 percent (5.1 percent in total between existing (2005) conditions and 2015) was applied to the existing traffic volumes to account for the increase in through traffic along the freeway. Second, the Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final EIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments vehicle trips associated with all the approved projects in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco were assigned to the freeway. These included the recently approved Home Depot, Lowe's, and Terrabay projects, plus anticipated future developments in office and biotechnology space in the area. Future with Project traffic volumes were developed by adding the Project vehicle trips to the Future without Project traffic volumes. A2 -10 Please refer to the response to comment A2 -8. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 .--,.. -.....,,... -. - ....-. ...,_ -.. -, -.- - -- - - - -, To: STATECLEARING - .- .. _- t( HDU .. At 9 1 6323301 8 STATE OFCAUFORNIA 1�115L NF_ 9S. TRAN. k1�( 1RTA77nNANT1TIf111gYNl7a /arrary .�ti.•...,.. .�.. r. DEPARTMENI OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVEN JE P. 0. SOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94 23 - 0660 PHONE (510) 286 505 PAX (510) 256 -555 TTY (800) 735 -292 P NAVff June 19, 20@7 JUN 1 9 zao STATE CLEANNG HOUSE Mr. Gerry I caudin �-- City of Sou h San Francisco Planning Di partment 315 Maple venue South San I 1rancisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Bdaudin: Comment Letter A3 I I qP FIE4 your Power! Be en rgy efclem! c Ro -r /!6r o SM101425 e SM- 1.01 -21.4 -23.20 SCH #206092054 FORBES OF>� ICE/R &D -- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR ADDITIO AL COMMENTS Thank you continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) I review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following add based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our previous commen incorporated here by reference. the comments apply and Traffic Mitigation between a and clarify. Fair Share: share contz how the C approved ii Please fee still Measure 4.8 -5A: There are two mitigations for the same off -ramp at U.S. 101 ❑ Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive intersection. Is there a diffeience ,cond off -ramp lane extension and a second off -ramp lane connection? Please ex lain .he DEIR mentioned that the project applicant shall be responsible for providing fair iution for the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures 4.8 -4 and 4.8 -5A. AdIress y of South San Francisco will mitigate the traffic impacts of this project and others :eeent years on the intersections surrounding the U.S. 101 ramps. free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -164 or n@dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter.. Si erely, JL TIMOTHY SABLE District Br ch Chief c: Ms. {Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse °C.'alrnans Improves nwbidity acroxx (:alifurnia" 2.0 -9 2.0 Response to Comments A3 Timothy Sable California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, California 94623 -0660 A3 -1 Please refer to the response to comment A2 -2. A3 -2 All projects located within the East of 101 Area shall pay their "fair share" of Traffic Impact Fees. "Fair share" is based on the amount of peak hour trips generated by the development. The Traffic Impact Fees are collected to fund the improvements and will be updated by the end of 2007. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 UL r 7 �w Jonathan M. Bergschneider Senior Vice President — Development Slough Estates USA Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, California 94080 Tel. +1 650 875.1002 Fax. +1 650 875.1003 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL May 31, 2007 Ms. Susy Kalkin Principal Planner CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, 94080 RE: FORMAL COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EIR 494 FORBES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Ms. Kalkin: www.sloughestates.com On behalf of the applicant, Slough Forbes, LLC, please find below formal comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 494 Forbes Office/R &D Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 Construction Emissions: With regards to suspension of excavation and grading activities when sustained winds exceed 25 mph, please clarify the term "sustained ". 4.3-3 Erosion Control Plan The mitigation measure states that the erosion control plan shall include "sediment basin design calculations." The obligation is to conform to ABAG while leaving 2l incorporation of specific erosion control measures up to the engineer. We request the phrase "with sediment basin design calculations" be removed from the mitigation measure description. 4.4-4 TEC Monitoring Well: We will continue to provide TEC Accutite access to the project site to monitor groundwater, provided that the San Mateo County Health Services Agency has not �3 already determined the well may be abandoned. However, we will request that the Cabot property owner, Barthold Stelling Testementary Trust, move the location of the monitoring well as it impedes construction of our parking garage. 2.0 -11 Head Office: 444 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3230, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Tel. +1 312 755.0700 Fax. +1 312 755.0717 Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 2 4.4-1 Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Please confirm that this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that our project environmental engineer /scientist will determine if any discovered materials 4 pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers so that the project can respond accordingly. 4.5-2 Oil/Water Separator: The description of this mitigation measure states that an oil /water separator should be installed on site "to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater, prior to 5 draining to the sanitary sewer." Reference to "sanitary sewer" appears to be a typo since our site drainage system does not discharge to the sanitary sewer. Please clarify. Was this measure intended for the parking garage? 4.5-3 Alternative Drainage Solutions: This mitigation measure indicates that alternative drainage solutions shall include ponds. We assume this should be interpreted to mean that "potential alternative drainage solutions may include... ponds." The site plan has been approved and El currently does not include a pond. Locating a pond on site would adversely affect the City's existing requirements of open usable green space and a balance between surface parking and the size of the parking structure. 4.5-4 ROOftOD Rainwater Retention We assume this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that trace rooftop and downspout retention should be accounted for in C3.0 calculations. However, if this mitigation contemplates implementing a dedicated rooftop retention facility, or creating mechanisms to hold back roof rainwater, such schemes are not feasible due El to structural and spatial limitations. Rooftop real estate is required for HVAC equipment for both laboratory and office uses. Please revise the mitigation to read "The project applicant may incorporate rooftop or downspout retention..." 4.5-6 Sump at Truck Docks: Please clarify how the required capacity of the sump is determined. 2.0 -12 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SI-1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 3 Transportation and Circulation: General Comments Please explain the considerable discrepancy between trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes (Table 4.8 -12) and those used to calculate impacts from the Genentech Campuses (Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, Table 4.7 -11). The trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes are double the rates used for AM inbound and PM outbound office use for Genentech. These discrepancies in trip generation rates translate into larger impacts attributed to 494 Forbes at each of the intersections and ramps analyzed compared to the same R &D area from Genentech. As a result, 494 Forbes would be unduly taxed with disproportionately higher fair share costs. Preliminary fair share cost percentages for 494 Forbes are inconsistent with the ratio between its building area and the total future developed area anticipated at year 2015 (Genentech EIR Table 5 -1), which should be a conservative comparison given the distribution of anticipated uses. For traffic mitigations requiring a fair share contribution, the applicant's fair share shall be calculated using the ratio of its incremental increase in trips to the intersection or ramp to the total increase in trips from 2007 to 2015. 4.8-2 Fair Share Contributions to Various Traffic Improvements: Although the applicant is only responsible for contributing its fair share towards the cost of these improvements, this mitigation requires that improvements be completed prior to occupancy of the applicant's buildings. The applicant has no control over when these improvements will actually be constructed and therefore tenancy of its buildings should not be tied to this condition. The applicant requests the mitigation require that the applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. a 10 Intersection #1 — Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave./US101 NB on -ramp Mitigation Measure: Widen WB Oyster Point Blvd. approach to provide a second exclusive right turn lane; OR widen NB Dubuque Ave. approach to provide two 11 exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. 2.0 -13 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 4 The Genentech EIR suggests restriping and shifting the concrete median rather than widening Oyster Point Blvd. Why was this not a mitigation option for 494 Forbes? Please confirm that "widening" Oyster Point Blvd consists of restriping to create a second right turn lane, as opposed to widening the elevated deck? Per the trip distribution for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the Dubuque improvement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation. Intersection #5 — East Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way Mitigation Measure: Widen EB East Grand Ave. approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Per the trip distribution values for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the EB right turn movement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation measure. Intersection #6 — Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. Mitigation Measure: Reconfigure the Produce Ave. intersection leg to provide third SB departure lane. Please confirm that this mitigation will receive the additional WB Airport left turn lane. Please explain "reconfigure ". Does this include relocation of traffic signals or widening? 11 4.8-3 Traffic Improvements at East Grand and Allerton Avenue: Similar to our comments for 4.8 -2, we request this mitigation require that the 12 applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. 4.8-5 Ramp Improvements: The first and third improvements described in this mitigation measure appear to be 13 the same. Please clarify. 2.0 -14 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 5 4.8-7 Traffic Improvements at Project Frontage: We request this mitigation require that the described improvements be completed 14 prior to the project's full occupancy. Secondly, the project's northerly driveway must maintain access for outbound traffic as it serves the truck dock to Building B. 4.8-8 Sidewalks: We request this mitigation measure be modified to eliminate the requirement to 15 provide a sidewalk along Allerton Avenue, as this is included in the project. The project will add an internal walkway to the Allerton Avenue sidewalk. 4.9-1 Water Conservation: This mitigation measure is written to prescribe that the project shall implement a gray r 96 water irrigation system. We assume that this was intended to describe that a potential water conservation method could be the use of a gray water irrigation system. Please clarify. Please let me know if you need any clarification on these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, SLOUGH ESTATES USA INc. Jonathan M. Bergschneider CC: Tom Gilman, DES Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham David Bowden, HDCCo Jeff Marcowitz, Diane Smith, PMA 2.0 -15 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England 2.0 Response to Comments PA1 Jonathon M. Bergschneider Slough Estates USA, Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, California 94080 PA1 -1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has not provided a definition of the term "sustained" in its CEQA Guidelines. This mitigation measure shall be interpreted to mean that if winds exceed 25 miles per hour and there is a visible dust cloud or plume at the edge of the project site, at that point grading and other earth moving or disturbing activities shall be suspended. PA1 -2 The Erosion Control Plan shall comply with accepted Best Management Practices and shall be designed by a registered civil engineer approved by the City to design erosion control plans. PA1 -3 The monitoring well may be relocated, subject to approval of the San Mateo County Health Services Agency, insofar as the relocated well allows the same level of monitoring as the existing location. Text has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.4 -5 to allow for the relocation of the monitoring well. PA1 -4 The comment correctly interprets Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1s intent and implementation. PA1 -5 Mitigation Measure 4.5 -2 has been revised to state that the water from the separator will drain into the City's storm water drainage system. The mitigation measure is intended for all parking areas (outdoor parking and parking garage) that will drain to the storm water drainage system. PA1 -6 The language of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3 states that alternative drainage solutions shall be installed "where feasible." The language of the measure is permissive and does not mandate the construction and maintenance of a pond if not feasible. PA1 -7 The intent of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -4 is to require the applicant to design a storm water detention /retention system to retain excess storm water runoff beyond predevelopment levels. Excess runoff conveyed from building rooftops via down - sprouts may be infiltrated on site or retained in underground storm water vaults in case rooftop retention is not possible. The text of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -4 has been revised to allow for the project to meet this requirement without necessarily providing rooftop retention. PA1 -8 To calculate potential spills within truck dock sumps, the applicant's design engineer is to use the maximum allowable truck capacity to be allowed on site to determine the largest possible spill. Multiple trucks at a dock should be included in the maximum capacity calculations. With regard to rainfall drainage issues, the capacity Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments of the sump is to be determined by utilizing a 10 -year storm event with a 5- minute time concentration to be pumped out. PA1 -9 Trip rates for new Genentech activities utilized in the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR were based upon trip generation surveys of existing activities on the Genentech campus. Because specific uses for the 494 Forbes project are unknown at this time, the most conservative trip rates for potential activities (i.e., for offices) were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. PA1 -10 The applicant will be required to pay the project's fair share towards the cost of constructing various traffic improvements at the time the Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the buildings is issued. PA1 -11 The recommendation to widen the westbound Oyster Point intersection approach to provide a second right turn lane rather than restriping and shifting the concrete median was made because there is not enough median width or overall width of Oyster Point Boulevard in order to complete this mitigation without widening. The measure suggested in the Genentech EIR to restripe and narrow the median has been rejected by City Public Works staff. Widening the Dubuque Avenue leg of the intersection was suggested as an alternative mitigation to providing a second westbound right turn lane on Oyster Point Boulevard because it also reduces the project impact to a less than significant level. Measures are not always recommended because they will be implemented on an intersection leg accommodating project traffic, but rather because they achieve the overall goal of reducing the project's impact to a less than significant level, possibly for a lower cost than a mitigation on an intersection leg used by project traffic. PA1 -12 The applicant will be required to pay the project's fair share towards the cost of constructing various traffic improvements at the time the Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the buildings is issued. PA1 -13 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5A has been revised to delete the second citation for U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive Intersection. PA1 -14 The improvements outlined in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -7 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the buildings. Please note that outbound movements from the project's northerly driveway have limited sight lines to the north to see southbound Allerton Avenue traffic. Therefore, the City will allow outbound movements from this driveway as right turns only PA1 -15 The improvements identified in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -8 shall be completed as outlined in the Draft EIR. PA1 -16 The project will be required to comply with all current and future recycled water requirements. Currently, there is no delivery system for recycled water in place. The applicant may install a recycled water infrastructure now to reduce future costs associated with connections to any future systems. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final EIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments Planning Commission Comments, May 17, 2007 The Planning Commission conducted a study session for the proposed project on May 17, 2007. During the course of the Commission's session, a number of questions concerning the proposed project were raised: PC1 -1 How long will it take to drive from the site to Highway 101? PC1 -2 How much traffic from East of U.S. 101 will make it into South San Francisco west of U.S. 101? PC1 -3 Follow -up on /note the staggered work hours (per Mr. Monfreddini s comments). PC1 -4 Follow -up on /note ancillary services (per Mr. Monfreddini s comments). Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments PC1 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting of May 17, 2007 PC1 -1 Results are presented below of six travel time runs during the PM commute peak hour between the project site and the Oyster Point interchange. Also presented are projections of the increased travel times drivers would expect by 2015 for the same trip with no new intersection mitigations and then with proposed mitigations. Increased travel times were projected using the increases in average delay expected at all intersections along the route (as presented in the EIR) along with some additional travel time expected between intersections. The routing was Forbes Boulevard /Eccles Avenue /Oyster Point Boulevard. From a distance standpoint, this is a longer route than Forbes /Gull /Oyster Point. However, by observation, there is so much Genentech traffic using Gull Road to Reach Oyster Point Boulevard during the PM commute (which occasionally backs up much of the distance from Oyster Point to Forbes), that the travel time by this route should be slower than the lightly used (but longer) Eccles Avenue route. Travel Time Surveys, Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Start Point: Forbes /Atherton Intersection End Point: Turning to U.S. 101 northbound on -ramp at Oyster Point /Dubuque intersection Route: Forbes /Eccles /Oyster Point Run No. Travel Time (in seconds) Start Time 1 255 4:27 PM 2 245 4:39 PM 3 260 4:50 PM 4 255 5:03 PM 5 350 5:13 PM 6 310 5:29 PM Average travel time = 280 seconds (4 min 40 sec) Maximum travel time = 350 seconds (5 min 50 sec) Travel time by 2015 with projected east of 101 development and no mitigations: Average travel time = 11 min 40 sec Travel time by 2015 with projected East of 101 development and proposed maximum intersection mitigations: Average travel time = 9 min 30 sec PC1 -2 Based upon previous surveys of East of 101 employee traffic routings, about 3 percent of project traffic would be expected to travel to downtown South San Francisco, with another 8 percent passing through the central area to /from Daly City and western South San Francisco via Sister Cities Boulevard or East Grand Avenue. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments PC1 -3 The City of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) regulations are a requirement of the proposed project. The TDM plan addresses staggered work hours as well as other methods to reduce AM and PM peak period traffic. PC1 -4 Ancillary services, such as food service, are being provided within larger campus type developments in the East of 101 area. These ancillary services are one of several methods being used to reduce vehicle trips. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 Comments on the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVL'NUF P. 0, BOX 23 OAKLAND, CA 94623- 0660 PHON.F (510) 622 -5491 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 October 25, 2010 �cow z ` F1ex your puuerl 8e energy �icienEl Zf SM101425 SM- 101 - 21.4 — 23:20 SCH#2006092054 Mr. Gerry Beaudiin City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: FORBES OFFICER &D — PARTIAL RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 114aI.PACT REPORT Thank you for continuing t .b. inalude.the California Department of Transp©rtation (Department) in the environi review procc8s for the Forbes Offzce/R, & D project. The following comments are based on the partial Re- circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDB1R). Highway Operadnns 1. Response to C:ornment'A2 -7: -Please, clarify the relationship between, second alternative improvement listed as mitigation for the oyster Point/northbound (NB) 101 on ramp and the Genentech Master Plan. 2. Tables UA and 4.8 -14: -Please renumber the study intersections to correspond to the numbers in Figures 4.8 -4/5, 4.8 =6/7; and 4.8 -519. 3. For the purpose of clarity, we suggest providing the lane configurations, .geometries, and turning, movements for the existing study intersections, and proposed lane improvements for the Future Year 2015 as you provided in Figure 4.8-.10. 4. Future 2015 conditions: Please explain; and verify why the peak hour delays shown in Table 4.8 -8 when compared to the.! xi%ing conditions shown in Table 4.8A show improvement since the discussion on pages 4:8.24 and 4.8 -25 do not noto any improvements .for these study intersections or facilities. For example, the Existing, AM/PM delays for the Airport Boulevard/U.S. -101 soutlzhound hook ramps are 25.5/27.0 yet the Future AM/PM delays are noted as 20. 1123.2. Please feel free to call. or.email Sandra. Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or Lauds p'V with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, LISA CARBONI District Brwich Chief 1,ocal Development laaftovenunontal Review c: State Clearinghouse "Cdlraw I mpraves nobility across Caflffornia" STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5505 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY (800) 735 -2929 June 7, 2007 FRO U61 mil E Mr. Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: Flex your power! Be energy efficient! SM101425 SM- 101 -21.4 — 23.20 SCH #2006092054 FORBES OFFICER &D — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our previous comments still apply and are incorporated here by reference. Highway Operations 1. Table 2.0 -1, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4, page 2.0 -18: The column Significance After Mitigation is blank. Indicate what the significance after mitigation would be. 2. Table 2.0 -1, Impact 4.8 -5, page 2.0 -19: Would both mitigation measures 4.8 -5A and 4.8- 5B Significance After Mitigation be significant and unavoidable, or only mitigation measure 4.8 -5B? 3. Figure 4.8 -2: Southbound (SB) US -101, the Airport Boulevard on -ramp near Oyster Point Boulevard is missing from the figure. Please include. 4. Table 4.8 -3, page 4.8 -15: The Thresholds for Average Total Delay per Vehicle (seconds) are transposed for Signalized and Unsignalized. Please correct. 5. US -101 Ramp Methodology, On- ramps, page 4.8 -20: The stated capacity for on -ramps is too high. Capacity on on -ramp would only be 1800 -2000 vehicles per hour. 6. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -6, page 4.8 -60: Fair share fees should be contributed to ramp metering project to .offset this significant impact. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Gerry Beaudin June 7, 2007 Page 2 7. Synchro Analysis, Oyster Point and Northbound (NB) 101 on -ramp, 2015 With Project Mitigated (Second NB land added), PM Peak Hour: This intersection is still LOS F. Project trips are being added to the West Bound (WB) ramp movement and delay for this movement has increased compared to 2015 Without Project. This would not be adequate mitigation for this project. Traffic Forecasting 1. Traffic Impact Analysis with Mitigation Needed under 2025 Cumulative Conditions: The Department believes there will be significant cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Forbes Office and R/D project and several recently approved projects, including Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay, and the Genetech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. The TIA under Cumulative Conditions and associated mitigation measures are required components of the CEQA document. The Department considers 2015 Conditions, a 10 year time frame, as an intermediate term. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions 20 — 30 years after Existing Conditions year is accepted as a long term time frame for cumulative impact analysis. Year 2025 and 2030 would be accepted as long term frame for cumulative impact analysis for this project. Please include long term and cumulative conditions in the document and TIA. 2. Assumptions for growth rate 2015 Future Without Project Conditions: Page 4.8 -25. What is the reference "as documented in approved transportation studies" for using 0.5% growth rate under 2015 Future Without Project Conditions between 2005 and 2015? What is the growth rate and its underlying assumptions between 2015 and 2025? 3. Traffic diagram at each intersection: Please provide the AM and PM peak hour traffic diagram for 2025 Cumulative Conditions. This diagram should demonstrate traffic per turning movement per intersection during peak hour. Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra fineaan @dot.ca. ,gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, o ,.QAL TIMOTHY . SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse Caltrans improves mobility across California To: STATECLEARINGHOU At: 919163233018 STATE OFCA=RNIn IRINVN1A9S TRAN41[1RTA77n7J A%MUATWfUn Ar7crory .r .......................... DEPARTMENI OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVEN JE P. 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94 23 -0660 PHONE (510) 286-. FAX (510)286-555) TTY (800) 735 -292 V June 19, 20 7 JUN '1 9 2007 STATE CLEARING MOUSE Mr. Gerry audin City of Sou h San Francisco Planning Di partment 315 Maple venue South San 11rancisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Bdaudin: FIE J your power. Be en rgy efclem! C- R.a .r (-n/VD - 7 k- +C SM101425 SM- 1.01 -21.4 -23.20 SCH #2006092054 FORBES I. OFFICE/R&D -- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ADDITIOIJAL COMMENTS Thank you r continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) i the environmen al review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following addit.onal comments based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (.DEIR). Our previous commenti. still apply and incorporated here by reference. Traffic Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5A: There are two mitigations for the same off -ramp at U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive intersection. Is there a diffejence between a s -.cond off -ramp lane extension and a second off -ramp lane connection? Please ex lain and clarify. Fair Share: Fhe DEIR mentioned that the project applicant shall be responsible for providing fair share contribution for the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures 4.8 -4 and 4.8 -5A. Ad Iress how the Ci y of South San Francisco will mitigate the traffic impacts of this project and others approved in recent years on the intersections surrounding the U.S. 101 ramps. Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -16 or sandra finekan@dot.ca.gov with any questions regarding this letter.. Si erely, , C QJL TIMOTHY SABLE District Br ch Chief c: Ms. frerry Roberts, State Clearinghouse " Calrnans Improves nwbiliry urrarx C"14furNla" o � `c E oF QY 4 S e A`. ^o +, rye STATE OF CALIFORNIA r GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH z �ALIpOpN* • � rA �OF GAL1Fd� STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT A- Nnr,n SMr R?ENRGGER CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 11, 2007 JUN -eb Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R &D Project SCH #: 2006092054 Dear Gerry Beaudin: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 8, 2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive;:comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those continents shall be supported by specific documentation." These continents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445 -0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006092054 Project Title 494 Forbes Boulevard Office /R &D Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Tvne EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project involves the development of the project site with two new office /research and development buildings, totaling 326,020 square feet. It is anticipated that full occupancy of the site would occur by 2011 The project would provide parking for a total of 1,036 automobiles, including a three -level parking garage, constructed at grade level. The parking garage would be a separate structure located toward the southern end of the site, behind Building A. The project would include both public and private landscaped areas throughout the site with plants and design features appropriate for the climate. A mixture of ground cover, vines, shrubs, and trees would be planted along the streets, buildings, sidewalks, and walkways, and in the private open spaces. A water - conserving automatic irrigation system would be installed on the site, in accordance with the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Lead Agency Contact Name Gerry Beaudin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877 -8535 email Waterways Address 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Fax State CA Zip 94080 Project Location County San Mateo City South San Francisco Region Cross Streets Allerton Avenue Parcel No. 111 - 001 -07 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 101, 1 -280, 1 -380 Airports SFO Railways UPRR, Caltrain Waterways San Francisco Bay Schools Martin ES, Ails Souls Schools, Siebecker School, Roger Williams Land Use Vacant Z: Planned Industrial (PI) Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic /Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Date Received 04/24/2007 Start of Review 04/24/2007 End of Review 06/08/2007 NntP, Rlanks in data fields result from insufficient information Drovided by lead aaencv. i L -- September 30, 2010 Linda Ajello Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for 494 Forbes Boulevard — City of South San Francisco - Dear Ms. Ajello: '. i"Usaft Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the hialgffiRW2 availability of the Partial Recirculated DEIR for 494 Forbes Boulevard. We appreciate this _ opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose. The project site is located under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Conical Surface, M"WW which establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. Airport staff understands that within the project area, the City's General Plan establishes building height limitations, which are based on Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. As stated in the DEIR, an FAA Form 7460 -1, (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) will need to be filed. The Airport appreciates your consideration. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or at john.ber ener _,flysfo.com Sincerely, John Bergener Airport Planning Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs Genentech A Meinberof the Roche Group 10/21/2010 Linda Ajello Associate Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: 494 Forbes Boulevard - Comments on Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006092054) Dear Ms. Kalkin: Genentech respectfully submits the following comments on the City of South San Francisco's ( "City ") Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Recirculated Draft ") for the proposed project at 494 Forbes Boulevard (SCH No. 2006092054, the "Project "). The City released the Recirculated Draft around September 10, 2010 and is accepting public comments through October 25, 2010. Genentech appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Project and looks forward to the City's response. Generally, Genentech supports the Project and believes the Project will be a valuable addition to the community and to the City. As the City is aware, Genentech runs a child -care center across the street from the Project. Approximately 500 children (of Genentech employees) attend daily and the center is open from 6 am — 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday. The children range in age from six weeks old to eleven years old. Given the close proximity of the center to the Project, Genentech is particularly concerned with the Project's potential impacts to the children. Genentech believes the Recirculated Draft fails to identify or properly consider a number of impacts, applies incorrect significance thresholds, and does not incorporate all of the appropriate mitigation measures required to ensure the children are adequately protected. We request that the City address these deficiencies, identified below, before the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors considers whether to certify the EIR. As noted above, Genentech supports this Project and would like to see it move forward. Our comments set forth herein are primarily intended to secure a greater level of mitigation of certain Project impacts to ensure the protection of children attending Genentech's child -care center. The comments below are provided on the Recirculated Draft and the 2007 Draft and Final EIR (collectively, the "EIR ") and begin with the Recirculated Draft. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SANS FRANCISCO, CA 94050 -4990 650.225.1000 Lv"I.gene.c ®m Genentech A Member of the Roche Grouly RECIRCULATED DRAFT Air Quality: Section 4.2 The Air Quality section of the Recirculated Draft (Section 4.2 -1) provides an analysis of air quality impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. It applies, however, the 1999 version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, which were superseded by a recently revised version of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines adopted in June, 2010 ( "2010 Guidelines "). Given that the Recirculated Draft was published in August, 2010, the impacts analysis in the Recirculated Draft incorrectly relied on the 1999 Guidelines and should have been based on the 2010 Guidelines. The 2010 Guidelines have more stringent significance thresholds than the 1999 Guidelines and recommend new mitigation measures that are not incorporated into the Recirculated Draft.' Having relied on outdated standards, the Recirculated Draft thus fails to adequately analyze and mitigate potential impacts from the Project. The 2010 Guidelines establish new air quality thresholds and methods to analyze and mitigate potential impacts that should be incorporated into the EIR. The 2010 Guidelines' thresholds for ROG and NOx are lower than the thresholds established in the 1999 Guidelines and used in the Recirculated Draft, and the 2010 Guidelines establish thresholds for PM2.5 which should be evaluated and incorporated into the EIR. The City should review and revise the air impacts analysis using the 2010 Guidelines. If this analysis changes any of the operational significance findings, then appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated into the EIR accordingly. Additionally, the Recirculated Draft's analysis of construction emissions fails to conform to the analytical method suggested by the 2010 Guidelines and is therefore inadequate. Instead of quantifying construction related air emissions and comparing those emissions to thresholds set forth in the 2010 Guidelines, the Recirculated Draft performs no analysis of construction related emissions impacts at all. Instead of making any attempt to quantify emissions, the Recirculated Draft simply assumes that impacts will be less than significant by relying upon a number of outdated control measures from the 1999 Guidelines. This is not a sufficient analysis of the project's construction related emissions impacts under CEQA and does not ensure that potential air quality impacts from construction will be mitigated appropriately. Construction related air emissions are of particular concern to Genentech given 1 While not an area of concern directly to Genentech, we note that Section 4. 10, Global Climate Change, similarly relied on the 1999 Guidelines despite more the more recent standards established in the 2010 Guidelines. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94050 -4990 650.225.1000 www.g.— ne.coin Genentech A Alennber of [lie Roche Group the Project's proximity to the child -care center and the particular sensitivity of children to the emissions and dust typically associated with construction activities. Under the 2010 Guidelines (and BAAQMD's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2010), BAAQMD suggests that if sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to a Project that may have construction - generated emissions of diesel PM for extended periods of time, the lead agency should consult with BAAQMD, the analysis shall disclose specified information regarding construction - related activities, and more stringent mitigation measures should be included. (See 2010 Guidelines at pp. 8 -4 through 8- 8). The child -care center is within 200 feet or less of the Project site. Yet the analysis contains no mention of consulting BAAQMD, no analysis of diesel exhaust impacts from construction equipment and vehicles, and no mitigation for potential diesel (PM) related impacts. Without a proper analysis of construction related emissions, the City should assume the Project will have significant air impacts and require more stringent mitigation measures as suggested in Table 8 -3 of the 2010 Guidelines. Moreover, it should also incorporate all of the mitigation measures from Table 8 -2 of the 2010 Guidelines, which apply to projects regardless of their impacts. Additional mitigation measures are warranted for this Project given the unusually close proximity to such a large number of particularly sensitive receptors. Children at Genentech's child -care center are outdoors at all times throughout the day in rotational shifts, and the outdoor play spaces are within approximately 100 feet from the Project site boundary along Allerton. The failure to incorporate more stringent mitigation measures is of significant concern to Genentech. Genentech would be pleased to work directly with the City and Project applicant, as well as with BAAQMD, to determine the most appropriate mitigation measures for the Project to implement for purposes of protecting the children at the child -care center. Aside from applying the wrong significance thresholds and failing to properly analyze construction related impacts, the Recirculated Draft fails to consider a number of potentially significant air quality impacts. The Project site is located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos ( "NOA ") may be found, yet the EIR does not analyze potential impacts from the disturbance of NOA during grading and construction activities or possible mitigation. This is a significant shortcoming of the air quality analysis. Genentech submits that the Project site is likely subject to the "Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations" set 2 Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, of the 2007 EIR states that bedrock in the vicinity of the Project site has been identified as the Franciscan complex (p. 4.3 -7), which typically contains serpentinite (p. 4.3 -1) — a rock known as frequently containing naturally occurring asbestos ( "A General Location Guide for Ultrainafic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain. Naturally Occurring Asbestos " — August, 2000, California Department of Conservation) . 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAID FRANCISCO, CA 94080-4990 650.225.1000 www.gene.com Genentech A ll%lernber of the Roche Group forth at Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 93105 ( "ATCM "), unless an exemption is determined to apply. Thus, Genentech requests that the City require a mitigation measure that the Project submit an Asbestos Dust Management Plan in accordance with the ATCM. In addition, based on the proximity to the child -care center and unique vulnerability of this population, Genentech requests that an Asbestos Air Monitoring Plan be required as additional mitigation of this potential impact. Finally, Genentech requests that all mitigation measures listed in 17 CCR 93105(e)(4) be required of the Project to ensure protection of the children from exposure to airborne asbestos. Of course, if the City determines on the basis of testing performed at the site that no naturally occurring asbestos is present at the site, and the site is exempt from the ATCM, then Genentech would not object to the omission or deletion of these mitigation measures pertaining specifically to naturally occurring asbestos. Additionally, it appears that the site has been tested for soils contamination, but those data are not disclosed in the Recirculated Draft. Genentech requests that the City disclose soils testing data and include a more careful analysis of the potential impacts to the children at the adjacent child -care center of potentially contaminated dust and PM emissions. To safeguard the children from this type of impact, the child -care center playground should be cleaned at least twice a week (or more if dust is visible) to prevent children's contact with, ingestion, and /or inhalation of dust containing naturally occurring asbestos or other contaminants. In addition, soils should be tested before construction begins to determine whether they are contaminated (this impact is also discussed below with regard to Section 4.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), and removed accordingly if contamination is found. Genentech requests the following mitigation measures be incorporated into the EIR's mitigation measures, which are modified based on the 2010 Guidelines (Table 8 -3) and are of particular importance for protecting the children from air emission impacts: • Use of a dust - screen /wind -fence along the Allerton side of the Project boundary. Trees across Allerton, as proposed by the Project, may be an appropriate mitigation measure for the operational phase of the Project, but would be insufficient for the construction phase. An artificial barrier should be erected for the construction phase to minimize the impacts of dust and other air emissions on the children at the child -care center. If the City does not require a dust - screen /wind- fence, Genentech requests that the City provide a more complete analysis of air impacts, based on the 2010 Guidelines, and supported by a prevailing winds study to demonstrate why a dust - screen /wind -fence would not be an appropriate additional mitigation for the protection of the children. s The BAAQMD Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan application form indicates that an asbestos air monitoring plan may be required if the project lies within a quarter mile of a daycare center. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225,1000 wwwgenexom Genentech A .Meinber of the Roche Group • All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content should be verified by a moisture probe or lab samples. • Minimize idling time of diesel powered construction equipment and trucks to two minutes during construction. • Use low VOC architectural coatings beyond local requirements (i.e., lower VOC content than specified in BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3). Application of architectural coatings should occur only on weekends, to avoid impacts to children present at the child -care center on weekdays. • All excavation, grading, and /or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph as specified by mitigation measure 2 in Table 8 -3 of the 2010 Guidelines. Currently the Recirculated Draft inappropriately states that these activities will be suspended only_when "sustained" winds exceed 25 mph. • Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. • Any truck turn - around shall be located away from the child -care center, and access to the Project site should be limited to Forbes Avenue during the construction phase to the maximum extent possible. • Pouring of asphalt shall only be conducted on weekends. Asphalt fumes are known to contain air toxics that cause serious health problems, and children are more sensitive to these chemical exposures than adults. Genentech is opposed to any asphalt paving or pouring operations occurring while children are present at the child -care center. • "Limits" on excavation provided in Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1 must be defined so as to prevent potentially significant emissions. • The Project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off -road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction phase would achieve a project wide fleet average of 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after - treatment 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CIA 94050 -4990 650.225.1000 mmv gene.corn Genentech A plc niber of the Roche Group products, add -on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available. • All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. All contractors shall use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standard for off -road heavy duty diesel engines. Lastly, chemicals used for research and development purposes may emit toxic air contaminants (TACs). The Recirculated Draft does not address the potential for TAC emissions associated with the operational phase of the Project. Genentech requests that the City revisit the air analysis to address the possibility of TAC emissions from the research and development activities that will be taking place at the Project site during operation, and mitigate any such impacts appropriately. Genentech also requests that the Project be designed such that exhaust from R &D fume -hoods would be located as far away from the child -care center as possible. Noise: Section 4.7 The Recirculated Draft analyzes noise impacts in section 4.7. The Recirculated Draft explains that "this analysis has used a 3 dB(A) CNEL increase as the basis for determining a significant noise impact." (Recirculated Draft, at p. 4.7 -13). Instead of applying this threshold, however, the City compares the noise increase for consistency with the general plan and City ordinance and requires a number of mitigation measures during construction. The Recirculated Draft fails to apply the 3 dB(A) threshold or quantify and analyze noise increases that will be experienced by the child -care center. This fundamental error calls into question whether noise impacts from construction are in fact mitigated sufficiently under mitigation measures 4.7- 3(a -d). Noise should be properly analyzed by quantifying impacts to the child- care center and adopting appropriate mitigation measures if increases are above the 3 dB(A) threshold. In addition, Genentech requests a mitigation measure requiring that pneumatically powered tools be used on weekends only and for the Project to avoid the loudest construction activities during the 12pm -3pm time frame, as this is when many of the children attending the child -care center are napping. We also request that all construction equipment be "quiet 4 The U.S. General Services Administration report titled "Child Care Center Design Guide" establishes acceptable levels of outdoor noise at child -care centers. (U.S General Services Administration, Child Core Center Design Guide, PBS -140 (July 2003), at page 10 -6). Those established levels should be incorporated into the EIR as thresholds for determining whether the Project's construction will have a significant impact. If these thresholds would be exceeded, mitigation measures that would reduce the noise to levels below these thresholds should be incorporated into the Project's EIR. I DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN F=RANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225.1000 www.gene.com Genentech A Member of the Roche Group equipment" unless unavailable. Genentech has significant concerns about the impacts to the children if their naps are disrupted by noise generated by construction activities during the construction phase of the Project. Similar to the noise analysis, the analysis of vibration impacts from Project construction is flawed. The Recirculated Draft states that the child -care center is approximately 300 feet from where pile- driving would occur (Recirculated Draft, at p. 4.7 -8), and thus vibration levels would be just below a significant threshold of 72 VdB (vibration levels at 300 feet distance would be very close to this threshold, at 71.8 VdB). Genentech requests that an explanation of this be provided, and that specific information be provided as to exactly where pile - driving will occur. The vast majority of the Project site appears to be much closer to the child -care center than 300 feet, which could mean that the significance threshold of 72 VdB would be exceeded. Moreover, Genentech has vibration - sensitive research and development operations that are also adjacent to the Project and constitute Category I facilities, requiring that the lower significance threshold of 65 VdB be applied. The Final EIR should carefully analyze vibration impacts applying the significance threshold for Category I facilities, as well as the location and impacts from pile- driving activities, and add additional mitigation measures to ensure that vibration impacts to the children, as well as to Genentech's research and development activities, are reduced to a less than significant level. Given the unsubstantiated vibration analysis and conclusion, the Recirculated Draft should at a minimum prohibit the use of construction equipment that creates vibration above 65 VdB at the boundary of Genentech's neighboring buildings, and should prohibit pile- driving activities during the 12pm -3pm time frame (naptimes) on weekdays. Genentech would prefer if all pile- driving activities could be scheduled for weekends and avoid weekdays altogether. Transportation and Circulation, Section 4.8 The Transportation and Circulation section of the Recirculated Draft sets a threshold and then fails to apply it. Impact 4.8 -1 sets a threshold of 100 trips, notes that the Project will result in over 200 trips per day, and then concludes that the impacts may be significant rather than concluding that it will be significant. This analysis thus fails to properly apply the established threshold. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan set out in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 of the Recirculated Draft drops the vehicle reduction requirement from 35 percent (in the 2007 EIR) to 20 percent without explanation. Traffic impacts (and corresponding air impacts) would be better mitigated, by reducing the number of car trips resulting from the Project by either adhering to the 35 percent vehicle reduction requirement as 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 4990 650.225.1000 wvm�gene.com Genentech A Member of the Roche Grote originally planned, or by choosing the reduced parking alternative that meets the Project objectives and reduces impacts.' Notably, the Transportation and Circulation section does not consider construction related traffic impacts along Allerton. Genentech requests that these potential impacts be mitigated by requiring that construction vehicles access the Project site via the entrance on Forbes. 2007 DRAFT AND FINAL EIR Genentech acknowledges that the City requested that current comments be limited to those portions of the EIR that were recirculated. Due to the fact that Genentech now has a child -care center across the street from the Project site, however, we believe it is important to submit certain comments relating to several sections of the 2007 EIR that were not recirculated. Further, under CEQA, community participants are permitted to submit comments on any portion of the EIR any time before the Board of Supervisors certifies the EIR. See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 CA.4th 1109, 1119. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Section 4.4 The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the 2007 Draft EIR relies on a Phase I site assessment performed in 2002 on the Project site and a summary of environmental issues prepared by Geomatrix in June 2006. That summary refers to a Phase II site assessment, but that Phase II is not included as an appendix to the EIR, nor are its results described. Additionally, the mitigation measures intended to protect against impacts from exposure to contaminated soils or hazardous substances provided in the Draft EIR are inadequate under CEQA. For example, Impact 4.4 -1 admits that construction could expose contaminated soils. (See 2007 Draft EIR 4.4 -10). Yet the Mitigation Measure (4.4 -1) fails to provide any monitoring of the soils or any analysis prior to beginning excavation or grading. Moreover, the mitigation measure provides no standards for any cleanup or remediation needed, which amounts to deferred mitigation — a practice that is not permitted by CEQA. As described in our comments on the air section above, Genentech is very concerned about the potential impact to children at our child -care center of airborne contaminants generated by construction activities at the 5 It is unclear from the EIR why the reduced parking alternative is not the preferred alternative for this Project. That alternative meets the Project objectives and reduces the environmental impacts. If the reduced parking alternative is not the preferred alternative, the Recirculated Draft EIR should explain why. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN F ANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225.1000 vilpvw.gene.com Genentech A Member ofthe Roche Group Project site. This includes any dust or particulate matter containing contaminated soil particles. Genentech requests that the City disclose historical soils testing data, and perform additional soils testing as needed to ensure that shallow soil contamination levels do not exceed a level that could present a risk to the children at the child -care center. Genentech is primarily concerned that contaminated soil, if present, would travel in the form of dust to the child -care site and be inhaled or ingested by the children, who spend a significant amount of time outdoors each day and come into frequent contact with exposed play structures and playground surfaces where dust may be deposited. Genentech suggests that it would be appropriate to apply the Environmental Screening Levels ( "ESLs ") adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region for residential uses to shallow soils at the Project site, given the sensitivity and proximity of the children at the child- care center. If soils at the Project site exceed residential ESLs, Genentech requests that the City require removal and disposal of shallow soils to an extent that any remaining shallow soils at the site fall below the ESLs for residential use, or otherwise perform a site - specific risk assessment to specifically evaluate the risks presented to the children on the basis of contaminant levels present in soils at the Project site. Likewise, under Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3, the tenants occupying the project are required to develop a Hazardous Materials Business Plan ( "HMBP "). The existence of an HMBP, however, does not provide sufficient assurance that potential impacts related to hazardous materials usage at the Project site are mitigated to protect children at Genentech's child -care center. Genentech requests that hazardous materials and hazardous waste storage areas on the Project site be located at the farthest possible distance from the child -care center. In addition, Genentech requests that the Project applicant be required to develop contingency plans that specifically take into consideration emergencies that could have greater significance due to the proximity of children to the site. Again, Genentech would be pleased to work with the City and the Project applicant on emergency response plans appropriate taking into account the adjacent child -care center. Finally, Section 4.4 does not specifically mention the types of hazardous substances that may be used during operation of the Project. Genentech requests that appropriate containment and enclosures be required for all hazardous materials, including enclosure and monitoring systems for any dangerous refrigerants, such as ammonia. Finally, this section is flawed because it fails to adequately address CEQA requirements applicable to projects located within one - quarter mile of a school and which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle extremely hazardous substances. For such projects, as in the case of 494 Forbes due to its proximity to Genentech's child -care center, the lead agency is required to consult with the child -care center regarding the potential impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §15186). The 2007 Draft EIR fails to discuss impacts to that facility or require appropriate measures under CEQA Guidelines Section 15186 because "[n]o 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAID FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -4000 650.225.1000 wwwgene.coln Genentech A Meinber of the Roche Group schools are located within 0.25 miles of the project site." (See 2007 Draft EIR at 4.4 -9). The child -care center, however, is equivalent to a school, and that section of the CEQA Guidelines applies to proposed schools as well as existing schools. Thus, the 2007 Draft EIR should have evaluated these potential impacts and required consultation with Genentech's child -care center. (See also, Pub. Res. Code Section 21151.4 (requiring same)). Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, Genentech suggests that the City re- analyze project impacts in light of relevant thresholds and this comment letter and require additional mitigation measures to ensure that the Project impacts are mitigated appropriately. This is particularly warranted in light of the presence of over 500 young children on a daily basis — often outdoors — at the child -care center adjacent to the Project site and the potential exposure to airborne emissions of dust, naturally occurring asbestos, and other pollutants that could result from the construction activities. As indicated above, Genentech generally supports the Project and would be pleased to work with the City and the Project applicant to discuss appropriate mitigation of Project impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Sincerely, Shar Zamanpour Director, Workplace Planning 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225.1000 mnv l.genexom life science estates V 2 w r z E 0 a L 3 3 3 0 O r, w 0 N O O 0 ul O 00 Q V 0 0 0 LA v Q) 0 co CL v 0 O O VL4 HAND DELIVERY October 25, 2010 Ms. Linda Aj ello CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, 94080 RE: FORMAL COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW RECIRCULATED EIR 494 FORBES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Ms. Ajello: On behalf of the HCP Forbes, LLC, please find below formal comments to the recirculated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 494 Forbes Office /R &D Project. Mitigation Measure: 4.3-3 Erosion Control Plan: Our original comment from 2007 had requested that the phrase "with sediment basin design calculations" be removed from the mitigation measure because the statement is specifying a specific erosion control measure that may or may not ultimately be required after a proper design is made to meet code. The engineer of record is responsible for identifying the appropriate erosion control measures for the development. We respectfully request that the mitigation measure not direct the specific erosion control measure of sediment basins, which may not be required by the ultimate design. Transportation and Circulation: General Comments Fair share contribution and East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee: The following comments pertain to the recirculated EIR's mitigation measures as they are written, which generally state that the project's impacts will be sufficiently mitigated through fair share contribution towards the implementation of additional intersection/lane improvements. It is understood that some of the improvements may be integrated into a revised East of 101 Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) and that the Project will mitigate its impacts by paying its requisite East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, which may or may not increase in rate. For those intersections which are not integrated into the TIP, we respectfully request that the following comments be addressed: i L all HCP life science estates Ms. Aj ello October 25, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Inconsistent biotech R &D trip generation: We reiterate our original comment from 2007 which challenges the appropriateness of the assumed PM outbound trip generation rate for the 494 Forbes development (0.85 trips /lk sf), compared to the rate used in the Genentech Master Plan EIR (0.6 trips /lk sf). The proposed and intended use for 494 Forbes is known, and it is for biotech research and development (R &D) activities. This use is identical to the biotech R &D activities on the Genentech campus. Therefore, the same trip generation rates should apply to the 494 Forbes project. The difference in trip generation rate would amount to a disproportionate share of financial contribution from 494 Forbes in the order of 30 %. Revised TDM: Additionally, HCP has recently submitted a final Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program report which commits the project to reducing its trips by 35 %. The assumed reduction used as part of the traffic analysis was 20 %. We request that for mitigations which will be fair share contributions that the fair share percentage for 494 Forbes reflect the 35% trip reduction. For mitigations which will be met through payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, that if any rate increase occurs that the contribution from 494 Forbes is also reduced to account for its increased trip reduction relative to the code minimum. Fair Share: For all of the mitigation measures that are noted as fair share contribution to City - implemented traffic improvements, HCP would like to confirm that the fair share percentage per intersection will be HCP's anticipated additional incremental trip volume (for the time of day triggering the significant impact) for the particular lane movement(s) being improved, divided by the total anticipated additional incremental trips (for the same time of day) for the year analyzed. Some of the mitigation measures refer to the calculation as "determined by the City Engineer." HCP respectfully requests that the City confirm that the City Engineer will comply with the CEQA statute S15041 (a) referring to the application of "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards, as interpreted to mean the calculation described previously in this paragraph. Also, fair share contribution should be provided prior to occupancy of the second building, given that full build - out of the project is the trigger for the required mitigations. 4.8 -2 Intersection #6 — Oyster Pt Blvd/Gateway Blvd/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off/Ramp: This mitigation measure requires the applicant provide a fair share contribution towards the implementation of improvements including "add[ing] a third eastbound departure lane ". Please explain this should be interpreted as lane restriping to add a third eastbound through lane or road widening? z L ID HL C P life science estates Ms. Ajello October 25, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Intersection #7 — Oyster Point Blvd /Eccles Avenue This mitigation measure requires the applicant provide a fair share contribution towards the implementation of improvements including an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Please confirm if this mitigation measure should be interpreted as lane restriping or road widening. In addition, the number of project trips assigned to this movement is equal to 78% of the total number of trips increased in 2015. By inspection it would appear that other projects would have triggered the need for intersection improvements, as HCP's fair share percentage seems disproportionately high. Please provide additional information on how the number of total background trips was derived. Intersection #19 — Forbes Blvd/Allerton Ave: This mitigation measure requires that the applicant install an all way stop control. Such improvement is currently in place. The intersection study appears to acknowledge only one stop sign control on Allerton Ave. We request the project impact and mitigation measure to this intersection be reviewed under the existing condition. Intersection #21— South Airport Blvd /Gateway Blvd /Mitchell Ave: This intersection is shown as Intersection #22 on Figure 4.8 -1, 4.8 -11 and 4.8 -17. It is also shown as Intersection #22 under the list of study intersections on Page 4.8 -2. Please clarify to which intersection this mitigation measures applies. 4.8-3,7,8 Intersection #19 - Forbes Blvd / Allerton Avenue: Per our comment above for MM 4.8 -2, an all way stop is currently in place. We request the project impact and mitigation measure to this intersection be reviewed under the existing condition. 4.8-4 Intersection #15 — East Grand Ave. /Forbes Blvd. /Harbor Way: This mitigation measure requires the applicant to provide a fair share contribution towards widening East Bound East Grand Ave. approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Consistent with our comment from 2007, per the trip distribution values for the project (Figs. 4.8 -11 and 12), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the East Bound right turn movement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation measure. The City's response to our comment from 2007 was the following: "Measures are not always recommended because they will be implemented on an intersection leg accommodating project traffic, but rather because they achieve the overall goal of reducing the project's impact to a less than significant level, possibly for a lower cost than mitigation on an intersection leg used by project traffic." We acknowledge that in certain situations this would be true, but given this intersections' geometry, improvements to the through and right turn movements would not necessarily mitigate impacts to the left turn movement. These improvements seem inconsistent with CEQA statute S 15041(a) requiring that mitigation measures be created from and adequately shown to have nexus with the r ' Ms. Ajello 3 1 October 25, 2010 Page 4of5 life science estates project's impacts. 494 Forbes is shown not to be impacting the right turn movements for the East Bound approach of East Grand Ave. 4.8-4 Intersection #4 — Oyster Pt Blvd/Dubuque Ave: This mitigation requires a contribution towards creating a second right turn lane on the West Bound Oyster Point Blvd. approach. Please confirm if this mitigation measure should be interpreted as lane restriping or road widening to allow for the additional right turn lane. 4.8-5 Ramp Improvements: Please confirm if the improvements consisting of adding a lane to the US 101 North Bound On -ramp from Oyster Point Blvd. /Dubuque Ave., US 101 North Bound Off - ramp to South Airport/Wondercolor, and US 101 North Bound Off -ramp to East Grand /Executive will include restriping only or widening a portion of the ramp and /or freeway to accommodate the transition of the additional lane? 4.8-7 Intersection #15 East Grand /Forbes /Harbor Same comment from 4.8 -4. Additionally, please clarify whether this is a mitigation measure that requires a fair share contribution to intersection improvements needed due to the addition of project traffic to 2035 volumes? Also, does the 2035 traffic analysis assume the 2015 mitigation measures are in place? 4.8-9 General: Please clarify if the 2035 traffic analysis assumes the 2015 mitigation measures are in place. Intersection #10 — Airport Blvd /Grand Ave: This mitigation measure requires contribution towards widening the Grand Avenue East Bound approach to provide a third lane. Stripe as one left turn, one through lane and one right turn lane. Mitigation measure 4.8 -4 requires a fair share contribution to change signal timing at this intersection to mitigate the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. Please confirm that the improvements required under 4.8 -4 were accounted for in the analysis and in the determination for a need to improve at 2035. Intersection #6 — Ovster Pt Blvd/Gatewav Blvd/U.S. 101 Southbound Flvover Off /Ramp: Mitigation measure 4.8 -4 requires a fair share contribution to adjust signal timing, and towards restriping the South Bound flyover off -ramp approach right turn lane to a shared thru/right turn lane and providing three East Bound departure lanes to mitigate the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. Please confirm that the improvements required under 4.8 -4 were ~` Ms. Ajello L-J HCP October 25, 2010 Page 5 of 5 life science estates accounted for in the analysis and in the determination for a need to improve at 2035. 4.8-12 Traffic Improvements at Project Frontage We respectfully request this mitigation require that the described improvements be completed prior to the project's full occupancy. Secondly, we request that the City reconsider the restriction of inbound traffic only at the project's driveway as outbound traffic must be maintained in order for the truck dock to serve Building B. 4.8-14 Sidewalks: Our 2007 comment requested this mitigation measure be modified to eliminate the requirement to provide a sidewalk along Allerton Avenue. To clarify our comments, there is an existing sidewalk along the westerly side of Allerton and the project will add walkway connections between the site and Allerton Avenue. The project will also provide a new sidewalk along Forbes Blvd. We request this mitigation measure be modified to acknowledge the existing sidewalk along Allerton Avenue. The project does not plan on demolishing and replacing this existing sidewalk. Thank in advance for your review. Please let me know if you need any clarification on any of these comments. Sincerely, HCP FgRBES, LLC C-1 A' Mike Swofford CC: Jon Bergschneider, HCP Diane Smith, Project Management Advisors Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham Jonathan M. Bergschneider Senior Vice President — Development Slough Estates USA Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, California 94080 Tel. +1 650 875.1002 Fax. +1 650 875.1003 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL May 31, 2007 Ms. Susy Kalkin Principal Planner CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, 94080 RE: FORMAL COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EIR 494 FORBES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Ms. Kalkin: www.sloughestates.com On behalf of the applicant, Slough Forbes, LLC, please find below formal comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 494 Forbes Office/R &D Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 Construction Emissions: With regards to suspension of excavation and grading activities when sustained winds exceed 25 mph, please clarify the term "sustained ". 4.3-3 Erosion Control Plan The mitigation measure states that the erosion control plan shall include "sediment basin design calculations." The obligation is to conform to ABAG while leaving E incorporation of specific erosion control measures up to the engineer. We request the phrase "with sediment basin design calculations" be removed from the mitigation measure description. 4.4-4 TEC Monitoring Well: We will continue to provide TEC Accutite access to the project site to monitor groundwater, provided that the San Mateo County Health Services Agency has not 3❑ already determined the well may be abandoned. However, we will request that the Cabot property owner, Barthold Stelling Testementary Trust, move the location of the monitoring well as it impedes construction of our parking garage. Head Office: 444 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3230, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Tel. +1 312 755.0700 Fax. +1 312 755.0717 A ad Sir �''�¢� I. i. �. Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 2 4.4-1 Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Please confirm that this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that our project environmental engineer /scientist will determine if any discovered materials F 9 pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers so that the project can respond accordingly. 4.5-2 Oil/Water Separator: The description of this mitigation measure states that an oil /water separator should be installed on site "to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater, prior to El draining to the sanitary sewer." Reference to "sanitary sewer" appears to be a typo since our site drainage system does not discharge to the sanitary sewer. Please clarify. Was this measure intended for the parking garage? 4.5-3 Alternative Drainage Solutions: This mitigation measure indicates that alternative drainage solutions shall include ponds. We assume this should be interpreted to mean that "potential alternative drainage solutions may include... ponds." The site plan has been approved and El currently does not include a pond. Locating a pond on site would adversely affect the City's existing requirements of open usable green space and a balance between surface parking and the size of the parking structure. 4.5-4 ROOftOn Rainwater Retention We assume this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that trace rooftop and downspout retention should be accounted for in C3.0 calculations. However, if this mitigation contemplates implementing a dedicated rooftop retention facility, or creating mechanisms to hold back roof rainwater, such schemes are not feasible due to structural and spatial limitations. Rooftop real estate is required for HVAC equipment for both laboratory and office uses. Please revise the mitigation to read "The project applicant may incorporate rooftop or downspout retention..." 4.5-6 Sump at Truck Docks: Please clarify how the required capacity of the sump is determined. ❑$ Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SI_1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 3 Transportation and Circulation: General Comments Please explain the considerable discrepancy between trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes (Table 4.8 -12) and those used to calculate impacts from the Genentech Campuses (Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, Table 4.7 -11). The trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes are double the rates used for AM inbound and PM outbound office use for Genentech. These discrepancies in trip generation rates translate into larger impacts attributed to 494 Forbes at each of the intersections and ramps analyzed compared to the same R &D area from Genentech. As a result, 494 Forbes would be unduly taxed with disproportionately higher fair share costs. Preliminary fair share cost percentages for 494 Forbes are inconsistent with the ratio between its building area and the total future developed area anticipated at year 2015 (Genentech EIR Table 5 -1), which should be a conservative comparison given the distribution of anticipated uses. For traffic mitigations requiring a fair share contribution, the applicant's fair share shall be calculated using the ratio of its incremental increase in trips to the intersection or ramp to the total increase in trips from 2007 to 2015. 4.8-2 Fair Share Contributions to Various Traffic Improvements: Although the applicant is only responsible for contributing its fair share towards the cost of these improvements, this mitigation requires that improvements be completed prior to occupancy of the applicant's buildings. The applicant has no control over when these improvements will actually be constructed and therefore tenancy of its buildings should not be tied to this condition. The applicant requests the mitigation require that the applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. lu 10 Intersection #1 — Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB on -ramp Mitigation Measure: Widen WB Oyster Point Blvd. approach to provide a second exclusive right turn lane; OR widen NB Dubuque Ave. approach to provide two 11 exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 4 The Genentech EIR suggests restriping and shifting the concrete median rather than widening Oyster Point Blvd. Why was this not a mitigation option for 494 Forbes? Please confirm that "widening" Oyster Point Blvd consists of restriping to create a second right turn lane, as opposed to widening the elevated deck? Per the trip distribution for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the Dubuque improvement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation. Intersection #5 — East Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way Mitigation Measure: Widen EB East Grand Ave. approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Per the trip distribution values for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the EB right turn movement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation measure. Intersection #6 — Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. Mitigation Measure: Reconfigure the Produce Ave. intersection leg to provide third SB departure lane. Please confirm that this mitigation will receive the additional WB Airport left turn lane. Please explain "reconfigure ". Does this include relocation of traffic signals or widening? 11 4.8-3 Traffic Improvements at East Grand and Allerton Avenue: Similar to our comments for 4.8 -2, we request this mitigation require that the 12 applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. 4.8-5 Ramp Improvements: The first and third improvements described in this mitigation measure appear to be F 39 the same. Please clarify. Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England 1 j. Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 5 4.8-7 Traffic Improvements at Project Frontage: We request this mitigation require that the described improvements be completed 14 prior to the project's full occupancy. Secondly, the project's northerly driveway must maintain access for outbound traffic as it serves the truck dock to Building B. 4.8-8 Sidewalks: We request this mitigation measure be modified to eliminate the requirement to 15 provide a sidewalk along Allerton Avenue, as this is included in the project. The project will add an internal walkway to the Allerton Avenue sidewalk. 4.9-1 Water Conservation: This mitigation measure is written to prescribe that the project shall implement a gray r 96 water irrigation system. We assume that this was intended to describe that a potential water conservation method could be the use of a gray water irrigation system. Please clarify. Please let me know if you need any clarification on these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, SLOUGH ESTATES USA INc. " r I onat an CC: Tom Gilman, DES Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham David Bowden, HDCCo Jeff Marcowitz, Diane Smith, PMA Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England APPENDIX 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) y SQ2 ROG N x �Q Time Slice 1 /1/2013 - 1/28/2013 52a 29.89 32.98 Active Days: 20 4.44 2 z 2.24 Asphalt 01/01/2013 - 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 Active Days: 241 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.42 4.44 2 z 2.24 4.42 2.44 2 4.742.40 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 37.55 14.48 2117 Q,Q2 9,Q7 QLu Q,9_7 Q,u 2,$2 Q,L4 3.184.82 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 34.53 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 34.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 nstruction Related Mitigation Measur The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/ 2013 - 1/28/2013 r 29.89 32.98 Q,Q2 Q,Q$ 2- z 2-U 4.742.40 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 01 /01/2013- 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Active Days: 241 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 41.38 14.48 21 17 Q,Q2 9,Q7 Q,u g„Z g,u 2,$2 2,L4 3.184.82 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 38.36 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Architectural Coating 38.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:37:53 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 41.38 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 37.55 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 122 1.07 2.0 LLZ 0.99 2.L Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 8.22 1.07 9.30 1.72 0.99 2.71 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 1.72 0.00 1.72 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 LiA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 35.29 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 32.10 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 32.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Phase Assumptions Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 4 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 0.99 Z&Z Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 6.68 0.99 7.67 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Q�L 2,349.35 2,349.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 6.68 0.00 6.68 0.00 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 LiA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 4.331.44 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 1,571.59 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 1,272.04 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 95.48 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.07 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 38.86 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU 2.802.85 Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 35.66 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Architectural Coating 35.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:11 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 38.86 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 35.29 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Construction Related Mitigation Measures Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:35:45 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 3.05 18.65 29.63 0.02 0.12 1.25 1.37 0.04 1.14 1.18 4,424.97 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:26:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.19 2.19 3.38 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,610.97 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.17 1.99 3.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,365.80 Percent Reduction 0.91 9.13 5.33 NaN 0.00 0.00 9.39 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:26:32 PM L�L2 119.15 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.87 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 13.73 12.95 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 13.71 12.75 Percent Reduction 0.15 1.54 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 119.15 0.14 25.53 4.87 17,125.78 118.97 0.14 25.53 4.87 16,880.61 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Winter Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.07 2.17 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,608.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.05 1.97 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,362.99 Percent Reduction 0.97 9.22 9.84 NaN NaN NaN 9.40 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM L�L2 123.43 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.86 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 12.86 18.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 12.84 17.96 Percent Reduction 0.16 1.10 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 123.43 0.12 25.52 4.86 15,142.43 123.25 0.12 25.52 4.86 14,897.26 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project and Baseline Years: 2015 N/A Unmitigated Project- Mitigated Project - Baseline CO2e (metric Baseline CO2e (metric Results tons /year) tons /year) Transportation: 2,192.82 2,192.82 Area Source: 0.23 0.23 Electricity: 1,817.64 1,817.64 Natural Gas: 403.06 403.06 Water & Wastewater: 43.67 43.67 Solid Waste: 1,072.80 1,072.80 Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 Total: 5,530.22 1 5,530.22 Baseline is currently: OFF Baseline Project Name: Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline Transportation: Area Source: 0.23 0.23 Electricity: Natural Gas: 403.06 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIM 403.06 Water & Wastewater: 43.67 43.67 Solid Waste: Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: 0.00 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 Project - Baseline CO2e (metric tons /year( 1,817.64 1,817.64 1,072.80 1,072.80 2,192.82 2,192.82 IN Unmitigated Mitigated 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 Detailed Results Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation *: 2,192.82 39.65% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00% Electricity: 1,814.74 0.02 0.01 1,817.64 32.87% Natural Gas: 402.03 0.04 0.00 403.06 7.29% Water & Wastewater: 43.60 0.00 0.00 43.67 0.79% Solid Waste: 16.49 50.30 N/A 1,072.80 19.40% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: 5,530.22 100.00% * Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS. After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley" regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air condi Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule. Mitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation *: 2,192.82 39.65% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00% Electricity: 1,814.74 0.02 0.01 1,817.64 32.87% Natural Gas: 402.03 0.04 0.00 403.06 7.29% Water & Wastewater: 43.60 0.00 0.00 43.67 0.79% Solid Waste: 16.49 50.30 N/A 1,072.80 19.40% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Total: 5,530.22 100.00% Mitigation Measures Selected: Transportation: Go to the following tab: TranSO. Detail fVlit for a list of the transportation mitigation measures selected (in URBE EleCtriCity: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce electricity emissions. Natural Gas: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce natural gas emissions. Water and Wastewater: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce water and wastewater emissions. Solid Waste: The following mitigation measure has been selected to reduce solid waste related GHG emissions. Ag: No existing mitigation measures available. Off -Road Equipment: No existing mitigation measures available. Refrigerants: The following mitigation measure has ben selected to reduce refrigerant emissions: Carbon Sequestration: Project does not include carbon sequestration through tree planting. Emission Offsets /Credits: Project does not include purchase of emission offsets /credits. APPENDIX 4.2 URBEMIS Operational Emissions Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) y SQ2 ROG N x �Q Time Slice 1 /1/2013 - 1/28/2013 52a 29.89 32.98 Active Days: 20 4.44 2 z 2.24 Asphalt 01/01/2013 - 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 Active Days: 241 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.42 4.44 2 z 2.24 4.42 2.44 2 4.742.40 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 37.55 14.48 2117 Q,Q2 9,Q7 QLu Q,9_7 Q,u 2,$2 Q,L4 3.184.82 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 34.53 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 34.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 nstruction Related Mitigation Measur The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/ 2013 - 1/28/2013 r 29.89 32.98 Q,Q2 Q,Q$ 2- z 2-U 4.742.40 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 01 /01/2013- 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Active Days: 241 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 41.38 14.48 21 17 Q,Q2 9,Q7 Q,u g„Z g,u 2,$2 2,L4 3.184.82 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 38.36 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Architectural Coating 38.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:37:53 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 41.38 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 37.55 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 122 1.07 2.0 LLZ 0.99 2.L Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 8.22 1.07 9.30 1.72 0.99 2.71 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 1.72 0.00 1.72 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 LiA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 35.29 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 32.10 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 32.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Phase Assumptions Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 4 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 0.99 Z&Z Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 6.68 0.99 7.67 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Q�L 2,349.35 2,349.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 6.68 0.00 6.68 0.00 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 LiA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 4.331.44 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 1,571.59 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 1,272.04 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 95.48 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.07 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 38.86 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU 2.802.85 Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 35.66 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Architectural Coating 35.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:11 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 38.86 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 35.29 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Construction Related Mitigation Measures Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:35:45 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 3.05 18.65 29.63 0.02 0.12 1.25 1.37 0.04 1.14 1.18 4,424.97 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:26:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.19 2.19 3.38 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,610.97 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.17 1.99 3.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,365.80 Percent Reduction 0.91 9.13 5.33 NaN 0.00 0.00 9.39 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:26:32 PM L�L2 119.15 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.87 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 13.73 12.95 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 13.71 12.75 Percent Reduction 0.15 1.54 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 119.15 0.14 25.53 4.87 17,125.78 118.97 0.14 25.53 4.87 16,880.61 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Winter Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.07 2.17 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,608.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.05 1.97 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,362.99 Percent Reduction 0.97 9.22 9.84 NaN NaN NaN 9.40 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM L�L2 123.43 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.86 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 12.86 18.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 12.84 17.96 Percent Reduction 0.16 1.10 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 123.43 0.12 25.52 4.86 15,142.43 123.25 0.12 25.52 4.86 14,897.26 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 APPENDIX 4.4 Environmental Hazards Documentation Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , S , ENVI RONMENT A� - TE ASSSlET .r `ON SU UA N"S' r - , r r December .13, 20'02 tw 494. Forbes Boulevard .r . South S. *.Francisco, , C9` if Prepared for Jessica Mcolutock, Inc r ' r t ACC 2 67 5 =001 �OFO 1 r ; 1. C' fl'AxL�Np SN."t Mt;N SE'AT 'T I IN "ES :., :u�FY�fi -: i ii, fie. Yy i 1 � u C MEN, 7SULTANTS ■ / ^• rYy � ION�- ENTAL PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California ACC Project No. '02- 6735 - 001.00 Prepared for: Jessica McClintock, Inc. 1400 16th Street San Francisco, California 94103 December 13, 2002 Prepared by: Jyd Patel Environmental Assessor Reviewed by: David R. DeMent, RG, REA II #20115 v 1 Environmental Division Manager cp�-` 7977 Capwell Drive, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94621 • (510) 638 -8400 • FAX: (510) 638,8404 OAKLAND • LOS ANGELES • SACRAMENTO • SEATTLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consultant: ACC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ACC) Subject Property: 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Client: Jessica McClintock, Inc. Location: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue at 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California — - -- — - — - ___ ...... ___._.__...__ -- Current Use: The building located at the subject property is used as a retail store and a warehouse storage area for overstock clothing. Current Owner: Jessica McClintock, Inc. Site Characteristics: The subject property is approximately 7.5 -acres and consists of a two -story, 161,845- square -foot concrete block warehouse and office building with a parking lot and two loading docks. The main entrance lobby opens up to two retail areas with dressing rooms. The first retail area has been improved with cement floors, baseboard, and high ceilings. The dressing room in this area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The second retail area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The dressing room in this area did not contain any vinyl floor tiles. The warehouse area was improved with cement floors, restrooms, a lunch room, some offices and storage rooms, and a mezzanine level. The mezzanine level was not in use at the time of ACC's visit. 'Vicinity Characteristics: The subject property and surrounding areas are zoned P -I, Planned Industrial District, by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. A mixture of commercial, service, and light manufacturing businesses occupy the surrounding area. Purpose: This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was performed to provide a record of the site conditions, and to evaluate what, if any, environmental issues exist on this site. Recognized Environmental Conditions: This asse as revea n ev idence of any Recogn md-., „Envir�onmental.,,,Cgnd lions at the subject property. Additional Observations: The following observations were made during this assessment: During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed four 5 -gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5 -gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other one -gallon containers of cleaners. ACC did not observe any leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amount of materials stored on -site are below the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting (an amount equal to or greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet at standard temperature or pressure). It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these materials poses a low potential to impact the environment. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor located in the warehouse area. ACC was unable to open the structure to determine the use of these structures. ACC recommends that these structures be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery exists within the structure. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed surficial staining in the parking lot, loading docks, and two of the air handling units. ACC believes that the staining in the parking lot and loading dock is the result of leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. The staining in the air handling rooms is the result of leaking oil from the machines. The cement floor in the vicinity of this staining appeared to be intact. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of the stainings poses a low potential to impact the environment. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed a cement pad with several cut off pipes located to the rear of the building in the landscaping. ACC was unable to determine the former use of this structure. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of this cement pad poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC recommends that the cut off pipes be capped. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed several storm drains located throughout the property. ACC did not observe any staining in the vicinity of these drains. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these drains poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC identified suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) at the subject property. ACC performed an asbestos survey. The results of this survey will be reported in a separate report. During the site reconnaissance, ACC did not observe chipped and/or peeling paint on the � exterior or interior of the building. The subject property contains a structure constructed prior to 1978, which have painted surfaces that may meet the definition of lead -based paint. Lead was used in most paints until the 1950's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned paints containing lead in excess of 0.06% by weight for most non - industrial paints. There are state and federal occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines that are designed to protect residents and workers who disturb lead - based paint. A lead -based paw survey, performed by a- California Certified Lead Inspector is recommended if construction work is performed that disturbs the painted surfaces by such means as manual demolition, sanding, or scraping. Within 1.0 mile of the subject property, there are several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. ACC reviewed information for sites located within 0.125 miles of the subject property. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any of these sites have migrated to the subject property, though the property located at 485 -489 Cabot Road may have had an impact on the subject property. For a detailed description of this site, please refer to section 3.2.5 of this Report. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ..................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Limitations and Exceptions of Agreement ....................... ............................... 1 1.3 Limiting Conditions ................................................. ............................... 3. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................... ............................. ............................... 3 2.1 Location and Legal Description ................................... ............................... 3 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics ...........................:...... ............................... 3 2.3 Descriptions of Structures and Improvements .................. ............................... 3 2.4 Environmental Liens or Specialized Knowledge .............................................. 4 2.5 Current Uses of the Property .................. ........... ................. ............... 4 2.6 Past Uses of the Property ........................................... ............................... 4 2.7 Current and Past Uses of Adjacent Properties .................. ............................... 5 3 RECORDS REVIEW .................................................. ............................... 9 3.1 Physical Setting ....................................... . ......................................... I... 9 3.2 Government Environmental Agency Record Review ......... ............................... 9 3.3 Historical Use Information ......................................... ............................... 14 3.4 Additional Record Sources ......................................... ............................... 14 4.0 INFORMATION FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS ........... 14 4.1 Recognized Environmental Concerns ............................ ............................... 15 4.2 Physical Setting Analysis ........................................... ............................... 16 4.3 Other Conditions of Concern ....................................... ............................... 16 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ ............................... 17 6.0 AGENCY REVIEW .................................................... ............................... 19 7 REFERENCES ........................................................... ............................... 19 8.0 INTERVIEWS ........................................................... ............................... 19 FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Location Map 2 Topographical Map 3 Site Plan 4 Aerial Photograph 5 Assessor's Parcel Map 6 Radius Map Photographs 1- 4 APPENDICES A: Scope of Work B: EDR Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION On behalf of Jessica McClintock, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Client), ACC Environmental Consultants, Inc., (ACC), performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the property identified as 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services This ESA was performed to provide a record of the site conditions at the subject property and to evaluate what, if any, environmental issues exist at this site. Additional goals of this ESA are to assess the potential for adverse environmental impact from current and historical practices on the site and surrounding area. The following tasks were performed in accordance with the Scope of Services (Appendix A). • Site reconnaissance of the subject property to investigate for recognized environmental conditions. • A historical review of the use and improvements made to the subject property. • A review of available geologic and hydrogeologic literature concerning the property and surrounding area.. • Interviews of persons familiar with the history of the subject property. • A visual inspection of the onsite structures to evaluate if suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) are present. ACC will only be responsible for the identification of accessible materials. ACC shall not be responsible for the identification of suspect ACBM located in inaccessible areas including but not limited to above ceilings, under carpets, within wall cavities, within mechanical systems, under floors, or underground. Sampling was not performed. • Review of appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to reveal known hazardous wastes sites or significant leaks or spills of hazardous materials which may have occurred at the subject property and immediate vicinity. No radon survey was conducted as there is no documented evidence suggesting excessive radon levels in the South San Francisco area (State of California Department of Health Services, "California Statewide Radon Survey - Interim Results, " March 1990). 1.2 Limitations and Exceptions to Agreement _ ACC has performed the services for this project in accordance with our proposal, and within (�) current standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. Except for the representations set forth in this Phase I ESA, no other representations, guarantees, or warrantees are either expressed or implied. The records search was limited to reasonably ascertainable information and a site reconnaissance. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 2 1 ° The investigation was limited to a search for recognized environmental conditions at the subject property. The term recognized environmental condition means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. There is no investigation that is thorough enough to preclude the presence of hazardous materials that presently, or in the future, may be considered hazardous at the site. Because regulatory evaluation criteria are constantly changing, concentrations of constituents presently considered low may, in the future, fall under more stringent regulatory standards that require remediation. The site reconnaissance was limited to visual observation of surface conditions at the site. _ Interviews with public agency personnel were conducted. Reasonably ascertainable information was reviewed. This approach reflects current ASTM standards unless the information obtained as part of C � this work suggests the need for further investigation. Except for site conditions observed by ACC expressed in this Phase I ESA, no other representations, guaranteed, or warrantees of site conditions are either expressed or implied. Where there is a conflict between the environmental database and ACC's actual knowledge with regard to the distance and direction from the subject property of sites listed on the database, information obtained by ACC from the site reconnaissance will be used. Whenever feasible, ACC will note such conflict within the text of the report. The investigation addresses recognized environmental conditions at the subject site. However, certain conditions, such as those listed below may not be revealed: 1) naturally occurring toxic materials in the subsurface soils, rocks, water or toxicity of onsite flora; 2) toxicity of substances common in current habitable environments, such as stored household products, building materials, and consumables; 3) biological pathogens; 4) constituent plume below sampled or observed surface from remote source; <� 5) constituents or constituent concentrations that do not violate present regulatory standards, but may violate future standards; and 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 3 6) unknown site contamination, such as illegal dumping and/or accidental spillage which may occur following the site visit by ACC. Opinions and judgments expressed herein, which are based on our understanding and interpretation of current regulatory standards, should not be construed as legal opinions. This document and the information contained herein have been prepared solely for the Client and any reliance on this report by third parties not authorized by the Client shall be at such party's sole risk. 1.3 Limiting Conditions ACC did not encounter any limiting conditions. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Legal Description The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue at 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California (Figures 1 - 3). The San Mateo County Assessor's Office identifies the subject property as assessor's parcel number (API) 015- 050 -580 (Figure 5) 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics The subject property is approximately 7.5 -acres and consists of a building and a parking lot. The subject property and surrounding area are zoned P -I, Planned Industrial District, by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. A mixture of commercial, service, and manufacturing businesses occupy the surrounding area. 2.3 Descriptions of Structures and Improvements The subject property is occupied by a two -story concrete block warehouse and office building approximately 161,845 square feet in size, parking lot, and two loading docks. The mein entrance lobby opens up to two retail areas with dressing rooms. The first retail area has been improved with cement floors, baseboard, and high ceilings. The dressing room in this area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The second retail area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The dressing room in this area did not contain any vinyl floor tiles. The warehouse area was improved with cement floors, restrooms, a lunch room, some offices and storage rooms, and a mezzanine level. The mezzanine level was not in use at the time of ACC's visit. According to information available at the South San Francisco Building (. - Department, the building was constructed circa 1966. 3 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 '\ South San Francisco, California Page 4 2.4 Environmental Liens or Specialized Knowledge ACC was not informed of any environmental liens associated with the subject property. 2.5 Current Uses of the Property The subject property is occupied by Jessica McClintock, Inc. as a retail store and for overstock clothing storage. ACC was not informed of the future use of the property. 2.6 Past Uses of the Subject Property ACC reconstructed a brief history of the subject property through a review of Haines City Directories available at the South San Francisco Public Library and aerial photographs available at Pacific Aerial Surveys. Historic Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were not available for the subject property. A listing of Haines City Directories and aerial photographs reviewed can be found in section 7.0 of this report. Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, the subject property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, the subject property was vacant. Circa 1966 Circa 1967: According to information available at the South San Francisco Building Department ( SSFBD), the building located at the subject property was under construction. Circa 1967 - Circa 1983: According to permits available at SSFBD, the subject property was occupied by Kovet of California, a clothing distributor. Circa 1984: According to permits available at SSFBD, the subject property was occupied by Levi Strauss and Company, a clothing business. Circa 1989 - Present: According to permits available at SSFBD and information provided to ACC by the Client, the subject property was and continues to be occupied by Jessica McClintock, Inc. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 5 J ^J 2.7 Current and Past Uses of Adjacent Properties 501 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the Northeast Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1974 - Circa. 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Present: According to Haines City Directories, this property was and continues to be occupied by a commercial building. 493 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the North Circa. 1938 - Circa. 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1969 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Circa 2000: This address was not listed in the Haines City Directories. Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property continued to be occupied by the same building. Circa. 2002 - Present: According to Haines City Directories and based on visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by Columbus Sausage Company. 477 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the Northwest Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building related to a meat packing business. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 6 Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1967 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. According to a development plan for this area, this property was occupied by Owens - Corning Fiberglass Corporation from May 1967 to at least July 1968. Circa 1989 - Circa 1991: This address was not listed in the Haines City Directories. Circa 1994: According to the Haines City Directory, this property was occupied by HK Enterprises, Inc. Circa. 1997 - Present: According to Haines City Directories and based on visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by Pacific Agri - Products, Inc. 466 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the West -- Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was under construction. Circa 1975 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Circa 1991: According to Haines City Directories, this property was occupied by Wisconsin Toy Company, AB Dick Company, and Cheshire (a video jet company). Circa 1994 - Present: According to Haines City Directories and based on visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by South San Francisco Imported Auto Parts and Master Protection Corporation. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 7 465 Cabot Road, Adjacent Property to the Southwest Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1967 - Circa 1987: According to information available at the South San Francisco Public Library (SSFPL), this property was occupied by Sonoma Mission Creamery. Circa 1987 - Present: According to information available at SSFPL and visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by Columbus Salami Company. 485 -487 Cabot Road, Adjacent Property to the South Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1967 - Circa 1969: According to a development plan of the area, this property was occupied by Riva Distributing Company and Chemical Exhaust Fire Protection Company. Circa 1970 - Circa 1987: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by O'Connor Carpet Upholstery and Drapery Cleaners. Circa 1987 - Circa 1988: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by Falcon Services. Circa 1989 - Circa 1991: According to Haines City Directories, this property was occupied by Western Contract International and SGI Beverage Company. Circa 1994 - Circa 2002: According to Haines City Directories, this property was and continues to be occupied by Spider Staging Corporation. �J 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 8 405 Allerton Avenue, Adjacent Property to the South/Southeast Circa 1938 - Circa. 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1963: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1966 - Circa 1979: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by Underwriters Salvage Company of New York. Circa 1981 - Circa 2002: According to information available at SSFPL and Haines City Directories, this property was and continues to be occupied by Elena's Food Specialties. 444 Allerton Avenue, Adjacent Property to the East/Southeast Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. �� Circa 1958 - Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1975 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1986: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by the Magic Store. Circa 1989 - Circa 2002: This address was not listed in the Haines City Directories. Present: Based on visual observations, this property is occupied by See's Candies. 500 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the East Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - C � Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 9 Circa 1975 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Circa 1997: According to the Haines City Directory, this property was occupied by Galoob Lewis Toys, Inc. Circa 2000 - Present: Based on a review of aerial photographs and visual observations, this property was under construction with the development of two office buildings. 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW 3.1 Physical Setting According to subsurface investigations performed in the vicinity of the subject property, the area is underlain by a thin layer of soil over resistant bedrock that appears to be the buried surface of a former topographic high. Unconfined groundwater occurs at approximately 14 feet below ground !� surface (bgs). A second water bearing zone occurs from 30 to 41 feet bgs and is separated from the overlying zone by a 10 foot thick clayey silt deposit. Groundwater flow direction has been determined to flow toward the south/southwest. 3.2 Government Environmental Agency Record Review "Table 1: Records Review" lists the government environmental agency databases ACC reviewed. Shaded cells indicate that, in accordance with ASTM guidelines, the Environmental Database was not searched to the corresponding distance. The database obtained from EDR is included as Appendix B. When locations and distances reported by EDR were observed to be incorrect, ACC amended the information to provide a more accurate assessment. �J 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 10 ...,,.... .�:..::- :-:: -: ,_ _.i -::.,: �:�:.,, 111!::: ➢:'.. ". lil.'r; ': n.: !!i:':.:., ,.;r ;, ft ', ,: a ..., ,. 1. 'i. 'y ...1..1..1.......1. ,., t.. : .11., ,: i ... _:.!I HIM .: , p..a171.:.....!.,.u. ..! :!n llbvL:IIF !!il�•1 ra.dlll: l:9.;., ... ,!:. :ill.: U ! �i!�I!,rl:,!!::r!LI!I!!r!!n ,!. �� ..a .!1 a. '• l,tl.. Jl:l I :, 1 ' ! !, '!': �� 111!..., HIM :�., .:.:: I. �. 1.11!:, . IIL," _ ti l ! ilr.i !! ! J, !,. ! i �* 4!Ii IIII'!�', ( r i!!:!:�!!!! lir•I' !i I r ll!� h , ,!:! i•U ,, 'I L.I h: ! - ! + 'n I!!::Illt UL: �IPnI:! n.. 4:11' '.!.1::.:. .::: ..If 1. �:rc:!:: =:I::: I1., !!!I!ly :,.i::,!. l,nl �: r6:,,! j : .: , 1 :,I ;�! I,�!IJ !! N! I 1 1.91'IIII!Iia,,�,h,!4!1,!�h. 1: ITa, �I! IJ::,: Imiil9.: A „ {!I!•!nl�!I!. xf!llx�;L,!::::t::,, IL FI!f a ll Environmental Database Subject Within 118 - % - 2 % — 1 Total Site 118 % mile mile mile mile National Priority List No 0 0 0 0 0 Resource Conservation and Recovery No 0 0 1 1 2 Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites State Priority List No 0 0 0 0 0 State Contaminant List No 0 0 4 II �!!�i�i 1� ji!I I r ll 4 1,I rII I�� III:�1 CERCLIS Sites /No Further Remedial No I!�� 0 0 0 ! �;!hll! 0 fl� !n. Action Planned (NFRAP) Sites 'i�l9l��il ! ! ah9 RCRIS Treatment , Storage and No fl�rl Disposal Facilities .Nl Leaking Underground Storage Tank No n ,,� 3 8 19 ; �� ; 1 I�!� n ''�� 30 (LUST) Database California Solid Waste Landfills No ,I t 6,.. l, 0 0 2 !+ I�r�S� 2 (SWLF), Incinerators, or Transfer Stations Database ! E Hl ll!!! it! 1!I + II�!,,I !! I ! III i'! 11�!IIl p!'ll�!II'�l 0 0 li ���;,'! IIIFI! 0 Underground Storage Tank Database No II�I�I!! I± •! !!;�'1= !!!:�q�li!!! {!� Ilnn,lr !d.11.l 0 Tank Aboveground k Database g No riit 1. Emergency Re Notification g Y P No I!„ �!i t III L'I i! !, II I II I � , ilj I ! ++ ;l I ! ! I � !! I r h , !!'� �nl !, u�! :� N loll �I4i 1111�!!a qi ti � 11 I'r n�,��1 il� hlili!I�I II�!I!?! h 0 ll ,, ,!,� l :� I�I, I; ' II,' yli� o� !!!'! II!IPrli 1 �`. ; I is !, !+ ! ° ! I { i !!,�!II I, ! � � i' i!lll'rc � System ( Database Y "iF ) Db . . !! : ,, ,1 !, : ! !I:! !!'ii1, Ih lh ;lll�a:!11Lllhll!:I: CI{1! t h�1M IIIh1I�l�lht;1 �n�l•`h� ! Large Generators No l t ! 1 I'.!!!7' RCRA Quantity !!�I RCRA Small Quantity Generators No M, ' .!I (!'! It (I I!I �I!Ir!1011!!!!!; i!rl i!i !I! ;';!!11!4!1 it l! 2 !G „ ; ,!; +aCh�,l I! H. 'i ! ! ! ?i,; !, l!ll,!.li!Ik�T�OM 7 No II!1!�h Fln,h!I!!�ll�! 0 0 SLIC h; !!;!!liI!I� !�,'!':!! II! 1I_'; z {'! .''r!i 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 13 Site Name: Spider Staging Corporation Site Address: 485 -489 Cabot Road Gradient Direction: Downgradient Location: Adjacent Property to the South of the subject property Radius Map: Figure 6, Mapped Site ##2 Discussion: According to information available at SMCDEH, one 1,000 -gallon UST was removed from the site in 1986. In January 2001, a subsurface investigation was performed and petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater beneath the property. In August 2001, six groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site and elevated levels of chlorinated solvents were detected. In March 2002, five additional monitoring wells were installed to define the extent of hydrocarbon impact to groundwater. Significant concentrations of chlorinated solvents were identified in the upgradient and crossgradient monitoring wells. Based on these concentrations, the Responsible Party for this site requested permission from Jessica McClintock, Inc. to install a groundwater monitoring well on the subject property (494 Forbes Boulevard) to determine the extent of chlorinated solvent impact in the upgradient direction. ACC understands that the monitoring well will be installed in January 2003. Until the monitoring well is installed and sampled, ACC is unable to determine if the chlorinated solvent plume has impacted the subject property. ACC recommends that the groundwater monitoring report and subsequent quarterly monitoring reports be reviewed to determine if the solvent plume is impacting the subject property. 3.2.6 Solid Waste Landfill (SWLF) The SWLF database contains information regarding active and closed solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. The database is maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. There are two sites listed on the database that are located within 0.50 mile of the subject property. Both sites are not located within 0.125 mile of the subject property. Based on the distance of these sites relative to the subject property, the potential to impact the subject property is considered to be low. In addition, because the responsible party has been identified, should constituents originating at this site have an impact on the subject property, it is unlikely that the owner of the subject property would be held responsible. 3.2.7 RCRA Large Quantity Generator Database RCRA large quantity generators are facilities that generate more than 1000 kilograms of hazardous wastes per month. The generator database is maintained by the USEPA. There is one site listed on the database that is located within 0.125 mile of the subject property. In accordance with ASTM Standards (ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 -00), only the subject property and adjoining properties are required to be reviewed. The subject property nor any adjoining properties are listed on this database. 3.2.8 RCRA Small Quantity Generator Database 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 I _ \ South San Francisco California Page 14 The RCRA Small Quantity Generator Database contains sites that generate less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. This database is maintained by the US -EPA. In accordance with ASTM Standards (ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 -00) , ACC reviews the Small Quantity Generator database for only the subject property and adjoining properties. There are two sites listed on the Small Quantity Generator database that are located within 0.25 miles of the subject property. The subject property nor any adjoining properties are listed on this database. 3.2.9 Other Sites of Potential Environmental Concern ACC did not identify any other sites of potential environmental concern. 3.3 Historical Use Information For a history of the subject property see Section 2.6, Past Uses of the Property. 3.4 Additional Record Sources ACC reviewed the City of South San Francisco Building and Planning Department records. All relevant information from these sources is discussed elsewhere.in this report. 4.0 INFORMATION FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS On Thursday, November 21, 2002, ACC Environmental Assessor, Ms. Jyotika Patel, conducted a site reconnaissance at the subject property. No evidence of the following items was found at the property during the reconnaissance: • aboveground high power transmission lines • aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) • hydraulic lifts • monitoring well(s) • oil burners • oil /water separators • pipes of unknown use • ponds, pits, culverts, lagoons • regulated quantities of hazardous wastes • stressed vegetation • sumps • used batteries • USTs - fill ports (� - vent pipes • wastewater other than ordinary domestic sewage 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02 -6735- 001.00 South San Francisco, California Page 15 4.1 Recognized ]Environmental Concerns • electrical transformers • regulated quantities of hazardous materials • stained surfaces • storm drains • suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) • suspect lead -based paint 4.1.1 Electrical Transformers During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed one Dad mounted ,electrical ,transformer in the parking lot of the subject property. The concern with electrical transformers is that the dielectric fluid contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). ACC did not observe any evidence of leaks associated with the transformers or any evidence that the transformers have had an impact on the environment. Based on these observations, the potential to impact the environment is considered to be low. 4.1.2 Regulated Quantities of Hazardous Materials � During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed four 5 -gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5 -gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other one -gallon containers of cleaners. ACC did not observe any.leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amount of materials stored on -site are below the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting (an amount equal to or greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet at standard temperature or pressure). It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these materials poses a low potential to impact the environment. 4.1.3 Stained Surfaces During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed surficial staining in the parking lot, loading docks, and two of the air handling units. ACC believes that the staining in the parking lot and loa ft dock is the result of leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. The staining in the `air "handling rooms is the result of leaking oil from the machines. The cement floor in the vicinity of this staining appeared to be intact. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of the stainings poses a low potential to impact the environment. 4.1.4 Storm Drain During the site reconnaissance,. ACC , observed several storm drains Jocated throughout the property . ACC did not observe any staining in the vicinity of these drains. It is ACC's opinion that presence of these drains poses a low potential to impact the environment. 4.1.5 Suspect Asbestos Containing Building Materials 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 16 ACC identified suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) at the subject property. ACC performed an asbestos survey. The results of this survey will be reported in a separate report. 4.1.6 Suspect Lead -Based Paint During the site reconnaissance, ACC did not observe chipped and/or peeling paint on the exterior or interior of the building. The subject property contains a structure constructed prior to 1978, which have painted surfaces that may meet the definition of lead -based paint. Lead was used in most paints until the 1950's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned paints containing lead in excess of 0.06% by weight for most non - industrial paints. There are state and federal occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines that are designed to protect residents and workers who disturb lead -based paint. A lead -based paint survey performed by a California Certified Lead Inspector is recommended if construction work is performed that disturbs the painted surfaces by such means .as manual demolition, sanding, or scraping. 4.2 Physical Setting Analysis Jl Within 1.0 mile of the subject property, there are several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. Because regional groundwater flow direction is south/southeast in the vicinity of the subject property, constituents originating at sites to the north/northwest would be more .likely to migrate to the subject property than would constituents originating at sites in other positions relative to the subject property. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any sites have migrated to the 'subject property, but the property at 485 -489 Cabot Road may have had an impact on the subject property. For a detailed description of this site, please refer to section 3.2.5 of this Report. 4.3 Other Conditions of Concern During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor located in the warehouse area. ACC was unable to open the'structure to determine the use of these structures. ACC recommends that .these structures be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery exists within the structure. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed a cement pad with several cut off pipes located to the rear of the building in the landscaping. ACC was unable to determine the former use of this It Is ACC'i' . opanlon that the presence of this cement pad poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC recommends that the cut off pipes be capped. �J 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco, California Page 17 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ACC has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope of services and within the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 -00, of the property identified as 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. Exceptions to, or deletions from, the Standard Practice are described within the report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of any Recognized Environmental Conditions at the subject property. The'following observations were made during this assessment: During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed four 5 -gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5 -gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other one -gallon containers of cleaners. ACC did not observe any leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amount of materials stored on -site are below the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting (an amount equal to or greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet at standard temperature or pressure). It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these materials poses a low potential to impact the environment. J During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor located in the warehouse area. ACC was unable to open the structure to determine the use of these structures. ACC recommends that these structures be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery exists within the structure. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed surficial staining in the parking lot, loading docks, and two of the air handling units. ACC believes that the staining in the parking lot and loading dock is the result of leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. The staining in the air handling rooms is the result of leaking oil from the machines. The cement floor in the vicinity of this staining appeared to be intact. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of the stainings poses a low potential to impact the environment. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed a cement pad with several cut off pipes located to the rear of the building in the landscaping. ACC was unable to determine the former use of this structure. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of this cement pad poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC recommends that the cut off pipes be capped. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed several storm drains located throughout the property. ACC did, not observe any staining in the vicinity of these drains. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these drains poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC identified suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBW at the subject property. ACC performed an asbestos survey. The results of this survey will be reported in a separate report. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 18 During the site reconnaissance, ACC did not observe chipped and /or peeling paint on the exterior or interior of the building. The subject property contains a structure constructed prior to 1978, which have painted surfaces that may meet the definition of lead -based paint. Lead was used in most paints until the 1950's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned paints containing lead in excess of 0.06% by weight for most non - industrial paints. There are state and federal occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines that are designed to protect residents and workers who disturb lead -based paint. A lead -based paint survey performed by a California Certified Lead Inspector is recommended if construction work is performed that disturbs the painted surfaces by such means as manual demolition, sanding, or scraping. Within 1.0 mile of the subject property, there are several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. ACC reviewed information for sites located within 0.125 miles of the subject property. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any of these sites have migrated to the subject property, though the property located at 485 -489 Cabot Road may have had an impact on the subject property. For a detailed description of this site, please refer to section 3.2.5 of this Report. l 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California __ _ __ Page 19 6.0 AGENCY REVIEW 7.0 REFERENCES Haines City Directories: 1989, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2002. Pacific Aerial Surveys: 1938, 1946, 1955, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1979, 1989, 1993 and 2000. 8.0 INTERVIEWS Mr. Bruce Hutchins — Jessica McClintock, Inc. �,J Source; The Thomas Guide, San Mateo County, 2000 Title: Location Map 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 1 Scale: None Project No.:02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP e ^ • C Date: 12/12/02 ( ` J N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capwell Drive, 5ulte 100 Oakland, California 94621 (510) 688 -8400 Fax: (510) 638 -8404 S M7Z i'' it �.Q'jl T'Ll "N: I;', +1�_ n" - � - ra l rt b �:. , . .-�-�� `r K 1: ;4., ji :12 op �. ` � , � 1 e ..�tAe �1A �11�� ,. Ff � r' �R W��tw- M h P S 772 Ram 17 14i' .'M(RjI `!1#w,. sex t a i; i :.! ��" r r.ty - ri A ti ov Pacific A ri- Product Columbus 9 493 Forbes Office Buildings 477 Forbes 5oulevar6i 501 Forbes Boulevard Boulevard i I Forbes Boulevard 55F Imported Auto Parts 466 Forbes Boulevard Jessica McClintock, Inc. 494 Forbes Boulevard 0 Under Construction 500 Forbes Boulevard Railroad 5 Columbus Salami 465 Cabot Road 566'5 Candles 444 Allerton Avenue 566'5 Candles Cabot Road Title: Site Plan 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 3 Scale: None Project No. :02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP Date: 12/12/02 A'C'C N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capweli Drive, 5ulte 100 Oakland, California 94621 (510) 638 -8400 Fax: (510) 688 8404 S 7s o � o -° o LD L o 566'5 Candles 444 Allerton Avenue 566'5 Candles Cabot Road Title: Site Plan 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 3 Scale: None Project No. :02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP Date: 12/12/02 A'C'C N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capweli Drive, 5ulte 100 Oakland, California 94621 (510) 638 -8400 Fax: (510) 688 8404 S ME t ���'`�'` ir+'r+r'r` . n air, � _.r F• q ua.. I", -•-le r��e � t ��y -'�� �1 +h� `r. \ "Kiel ..a: �jr ,a va f-g.- 3F P f WV ;",4 O j'L . fr. (t r :.j!.A _ 40twaaw"'A-p ell i j -AX.A. _Fat. ig i `1 a� 0 Source: San Mateo County A55e66or'6 Office Title: Assessor's Map 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 5 Scale: None 'roject No: 02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP Date: 12112102 N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS .W E 7977 Capwell Drive, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94 (510) 638 -5400 Fina (510) 635.8404 S I IC, ® - 5ojECT SITE Z W � - Listed sites LV -1/8 Mile Radius J Title: 1/8 Mile Radius Map 494 Forbes Boulevard south San Francisco, California Figure Number: 6 Scale: None Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP (� (� Date: 12/12/02 - A - � - ` � N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capwell Drive, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94621 S (510) 638 -8400 Fax: (510) 638 -8404 .i� 'la'vv TY . ZZA Tr UE w1 1 1 � rJ fh i - �r. r i i fi F t � r � }a tl t y �'L P l iW 1'T J; jig ,t ;yy f t r tr . a S Lei G 1{ Y 7 }k i 7 - , r ' r , Ji.W l uTf6t�� a{'�, fFa a a� '�J f r t4 1i x 4 f .� . 51t sae f44t „ �'a n l} r j d6 rr e �. gd I ^2, �` r t♦ r rr- Q� t d r .�`Py - c 4 y: ��Nele� y�C _ H R s3 .,, ! �;* r M.A. 'M 1 y fF �q 'r�W �, � r ��J� �1rys s'PM r7 m r � J sue' t S� 7 ��1 �rt5r RVrrl P L .. .......... 51}d�` Environmental Investigation Activities Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................1 2.0 SITE SETTING AND DESCRIPTION .............................................. ..............................1 3.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................... ..............................2 3.1 FIELD PROCEDURES .................................................................. ..............................3 3. 1.1 Soil Vapor Survey ....................................................... ..............................3 3.1.2 Soil and Groundwater Sampling ................................. ..............................3 3.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS ........................................................... ..............................4 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............................................................ ..............................5 4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................ ..............................5 4.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS ............................................................. ..............................5 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... ..............................6 6.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................... ..............................7 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... ..............................8 TABLES Table 1 Soil and Groundwater Analytical Program Table 2 Summary of Results—Metals in Soil Table 3 Summary of Results —Grab Groundwater Samples FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Sampling Locations APPENDIXES Appendix A San Mateo County Environmental Health Permit Appendix B Boring Logs Appendix C Analytical Laboratory Reports M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc i REPORT OF RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., (Geomatrix), conducted a soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling program in support of due diligence activities on behalf of Bayside Area Developments, LLC ( Bayside) for the property at 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco California (the Site). This report provides a brief description of the site setting and summarizes the methods and procedures used as part of sampling activities, along with the results of the sampling program. This report is being submitted to the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) as a condition of GPP permit 04 -0797 (Appendix A). 2.0 SITE SETTING AND DESCRIPTION The Site is located on the southwest corner of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue in the City of South San Francisco (Figure 1). The site is approximately 7.5 aces in size and is identified by the San Mateo County Assessor's Office with Assessors Parcel Number 015- 050 -580. The majority of the Site is occupied up by an approximately 160,000- square -foot warehouse of concrete tilt -up construction. Office and retail space are attached to the northern portion of the warehouse. The warehouse has two loading docks and a mezzanine is present within the southwestern portion. The warehouse and a portion of the retail space have a concrete floor. The areas to the north and west of the building are primarily paved with asphalt- concrete and used for parking and driveways. Loading docks are located on both the east and west sides of the building; area drains are present within each loading dock. The areas in front of the loading docks are paved with concrete. The areas to the north and east of the northern parking area (along Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue), contain landscaping mounds, covered in grass and containing mature trees. The area along the east side of the building (i.e., along Allerton Avenue) is planted with abundant ground cover and contains many mature trees. The area M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc along the southwest of the Site (i.e., along the railroad right -of -way) is not paved, and is covered with shrubs, brush, and grasses. The site is bound on all sides by light industrial uses; specifically, it is bound to the northeast by a processed meat manufacturing facility and an agricultural products facility; to the northwest by an auto parts distribution facility, to the southwest by a former railroad right -of- way and processed meat manufacturing /food distribution facilities; and to the northeast and southeast by a commercial building and a candy manufacturing/distribution facility. Based on a review of GPP files, soil and groundwater beneath the 487 Cabot Road property, located to the southwest of the Site, contains petroleum constituents and chlorinated solvents at concentrations of potential environmental concern (TEC Accutite [TEC], 2004). Specifically, samples collected from monitoring well MW -12 in December 2003, which was previously installed by others as part of site investigation activities, contained concentrations of benzene at 1.6 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and perchloroethyene (PCE) at a concentration of 6 µg/L. 3.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES Based on the presence of chemicals associated with the adjacent properties, and to establish that previous site activities at the 494 Forbes site did not impact soil or groundwater beneath the Site, Geomatrix developed a soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling plan. Sampling activities are described below; and boring locations (GMX -1 through GMX -6 and GMX -8 through GMX -17) are shown on Figure 2. • Samples of shallow soil (less than 5 feet bgs) were collected from seven locations (GMX -1 through GMX -6 and GMX -8) and submitted for laboratory analyses for chemicals that may be associated with fill at the Site (e.g., metals). • Soil vapor samples were collected from eight locations beneath the concrete flooring of the warehouse (GMX -9 through GMX -17) to evaluate for the presence of VOCs that may be associated with VOCs in groundwater identified at the adjacent 487 Cabot Road property. Grab groundwater samples were collected from six locations (GMX -1 through GMX -5 and GMX -8) and submitted for laboratory analyses for chemicals primarily associated with adjacent properties with known or potential groundwater impacts. M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 2 3.1 FIELD PROCEDURES The following sections provide a short description of field procedures associated with soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling activities. Sample depths associated with soil and grab groundwater sampling activities are summarized in Table 1. Logs of borings advanced as part of this investigation are included in Appendix B. 3.1.1 Soil Vapor Survey The soil vapor survey was conducted by Transglobal Environmental Geochemistry (TEG), of Rancho Cordova, California, in accordance with the protocols set forth in the January 28, 2003 Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations, jointly issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances. The soil vapor survey involved the following basic steps: • Contracting a private underground utility locating service to identify underground utilities in the sample area; • Notifying Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify underground utilities in the sample areas; • Cutting concrete cores as needed prior to advancing the soil vapor probe; • Advancing soil vapor sampling probes for the collection of soil vapor samples. The probes were retracted up to 6 inches to expose the soil vapor probe inlet. Bentonite was placed around the annular space at the surface of each sampling location and hydrated to seal the open space around the drive rod; • Conducting a purge volume test at the first sampling location to determine the necessary purge volume for collecting soil vapor samples devoid of stagnant and /or ambient air at each subsequent sampling location; • Conducting a leak test at each sampling location with 1, 1 -difluoroethane; and • Collecting soil vapor samples from each sampling location with a syringe and analyzing the soil vapor for VOCs (EPA Method 8260) in an on -site California- certified mobile laboratory. 3.1.2 Soil and Groundwater Sampling The soil and groundwater investigation involved the following basic steps: • Contracting a private underground utility locating service to identify underground utilities in the sample area; • Notifying USA to identify underground utilities in the sample areas; M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 3 • Obtaining permits from San Mateo County for environmental borings (Appendix A); • Performing direct -push sampling at each sample location, except GMX -9, which was hand augered; • Steam - cleaning all sampling equipment before use at each location. Borings GMX -1 through GMX -6 and GMX -8 were sampled continuously. Soil samples were collected for classification and packaged for analysis in acetate liners or brass sleeves. Soil samples were labeled and placed into a cooler with ice for delivery to the laboratory; • Collecting groundwater samples at locations GMX -1 through GMX -5, and GMX -8. Borings were advanced to approximately 1 to 5 feet below the depth of where groundwater was first observed during drilling. At each boring, the exterior casings were retracted to expose between 5 to 10 feet of screened PVC. The exterior (Enviro -Core) casing maintained a seal with the subsurface material as the groundwater samples were collected. Groundwater samples were collected using a new disposable bailer and transferred into sample bottles provided by the laboratory. Groundwater samples were labeled and placed into a cooler with ice for delivery to the laboratory; • Grouting the boreholes to the surface by placing a PVC pipe to the bottom of the borehole, and pouring grout down the PVC pipe while retracting the pipe; and • Submitting the soil and groundwater samples by courier to the analytical laboratory following the standard Geomatrix chain -of- custody procedures. 3.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS Soil vapor samples were analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260). Soil and groundwater samples were analyzed using a suite of analytical methods that were intended to cover the range of anticipated chemicals potentially present in the Site soil and groundwater. Selected soil samples were analyzed for the following constituents: • Gasoline- and diesel -range hydrocarbons (EPA Method 8015M); • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX; EPA Method 8260B); • Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs; EPA Method 8270C SIM); • Organochlorine pesticides (EPA 8081A); • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs; EPA 8082); • Metals (CAM 17; EPA Method 6010B/747IA); and /or M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 4 • Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN; EPA Method 351.4). Groundwater samples were analyzed for the following constituents: • Gasoline- and diesel -range hydrocarbons (EPA Method 8015M); • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX; EPA Method 8260B); • Volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs; EPA Method 8260); • Metals (CAM 17; EPA Method 6010B); • Nitrates (EPA Method 300.0); and /or • Ammonia (EPA Method 350.1). The specific analytical methods associated with each soil and groundwater sample is summarized in Table 1. 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS The following section presents a summary of the analytical results of the soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling activities. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C and sampling locations are shown on Figure 2. 4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is primarily covered with concrete pavement (i.e., a wearing surface underlain by a thickness of aggregate base) underlain by native very stiff sandy clays and dense clayey to silty sands. The native soils encountered in the borings appear to be Colma Formation material. In general, groundwater was encountered at depths between 12 and 14 feet. Based on a review of available documents (TEC, 2003), groundwater flows primarily from the northeast to the southwest. 4.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS To evaluate potential impacts to human health, the analytical results for soil and soil vapor samples were compared to pathway specific Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) developed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) for both residential and commercial land uses (RWQCB, 2003). The ESLs are conservative, generic risk -based screening criteria that are intended to be protective of human health, ecological receptors and groundwater. The RWQCB generally considers that if M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc chemical concentrations are below residential ESLs, no further evaluation is warranted. Grab groundwater results were compared to California primary /secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established by the California Department of Health Services, when available. A comparison of results to these criteria is provided below. Soil Vapor Survey Six of the eight soil vapor survey locations did not contain detectable concentrations of VOCs. Concentrations of PCE (100 micrograms per cubic meter [[tg /m vapor) and toluene (150 µg /m were detected at both GMX -10 and GMX -11, respectively. These concentrations are less than their respective regulatory screening criteria of 410 µg /m 8300 µg /m which are used to evaluate potential health risks associated with the presence of VOCs in indoor air at residential properties. • Soil Sampling Soil samples did not contain concentrations TPHg, BTEX, PAHs, pesticides, or PCBs greater than their respective reporting limit. Concentrations of TPHd were less of 5 milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg), well below regulatory screening criteria (100 mg/kg to 500 mg/kg; depending on exposure pathway). As shown on Table 2, concentrations of metals were less than regulatory screening criteria. Groundwater Sampling Four of the six grab groundwater sampling locations did not contain detectable concentrations of VOCs (one sampling location, GMX -2, was not analyzed for VOCs). Benzene, total xylenes, and acetone were detected in the sample collected from GMX -8 at concentrations of 0.6 µg/L, 1.1 µg/L, and 20 µg/L, respectively. Acetone was detected in the sample collected from GMX -4 at concentrations of 21 µg/L. Concentrations of these compounds are less their respective MCL. Additionally, concentrations of inorganic constituents (i.e., metals and nitrogen related compounds) were less than regulatory screening criteria. A summary of compounds detected in grab groundwater samples, along with respective MCLs, is presented in Table 3. 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarized the available results of environmental sampling activities conducted at the 494 Forbes Site: • Results of the soil vapor survey indicate that soil vapors beneath the existing warehouse structure do not contain VOCs that would limit the continued use of the Site for commercial /industrial purposes or the potential future use as a residential property. • Available data indicates that there are VOCs are not present in the groundwater in the areas sampled at concentrations that would limit the continued used of the Site for commercial /industrial purposes or potential future use as a residential property. Groundwater samples collected by others from MW -12, associated with the M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 6 adjacent 487 Cabot Road facility, contained concentrations of benzene and PCE slightly above MCLs. Laboratory results indicate that there are no chemicals of concern in soil in the areas sampled that would limit the continued used of the Site for commercial /industrial purposes or potential future use as a residential property. Based on the data collected as part of this investigation, it appears that environmental conditions at the Site would not limit the continued use of the property and environmental impacts associated with redevelopment are anticipated to be minimal, if any. No further environmental investigation activities are recommended at this time. 6.0 LIMITATIONS In the performance of our professional services, Geomatrix, its employees, and its agents comply with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession practicing in the same or similar localities. No warranty, either express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed by us, or by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing or oral or written reports or findings. In preparing this report, Geomatrix has relied upon certain information and representations provided by government and Site employees, documents provided by the Site operator, and government database searches provided by others. Except as discussed, Geomatrix did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of that information. To the extent that the conclusions in this report are based in whole or in part on such information, those conclusions are contingent on its accuracy and validity. Geomatrix assumes no responsibility for any consequence arising from any information or condition that was concealed, withheld, misrepresented, or otherwise not fully disclosed or available to Geomatrix. This report has been prepared for the express use of Bayside, although it has been submitted to the San Mateo County GPP as a requirement of the boring permit issued for this project. No other person or organization is entitled to rely upon any part of this report without the prior written consent of Geomatrix. Bayside may release all or part(s) of this report to third parties; however, such third party in using this report agrees that it shall have no legal recourse against Geomatrix or its subsidiaries, and shall indemnify and defend Geomatrix or its subsidiaries from and against all claims arising out of or in conjunction with such use or reliance. M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 7 7.0 REFERENCES San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2003, Screening for Environmental Concern at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Interim Final), July. TEC Accutite, 2004, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report— December 2003, February 23. M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc Technical Memorandum Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Diane Floresca Smith DATE: June 8, 2006 FROM: Martin Bloes PROJ. NO.: 9798.003 CC: Tom Graf PROJ. NAME: 494 Forbes Boulevard SUBJECT: Summary of Environmental Issues 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California This memorandum is being prepared on behalf of Slough Forbes, LLC. (Slough), and Project Management Advisors (PMA) to summarize potential items of concern identified as part of Phase I and II environmental assessments conducted b ACC Environmental Consultants (ACC) and Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix), at the 494 Forbes property (the Site). Also included in this summary are future action items, if any, associated with each issue. Potential Issues 1) Testing of building materials for the presence of lead -based paint and asbestos. The building has been demolished and the resulting construction debris has been removed from the site by the contractor. Lead and asbestos abatement tasks were performed on behalf of Slough prior to building demolition. No additional follow-up ruarding this issue should be required. 2) The presence of a sub -slab structure covered with steel plating within the building. The area beneath the steel plates was inaccessible during site reconnaissance activities. It was speculated that the structure contained machinery (e.g., motors) for former Site operations. No machinery has been identified durin-a slab_ de molition activities; it is anticipated that no ditional follow-up regarding this issue should be required Consistent with general construction practices Slough should be notified j, p=iously unidentified subsurface structures ,grencountered during construction activities. 1 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report prepared by ACC Environmental in December 2002. 2 Environmental Investigation Activities Report prepared by Geomatrix in 2004. 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Tel 510. 663.4100 1 www.geoinatrix.com Oakland, California 94612 -3066 Fax 510.663,4141 ' Memorandum June 8, 2006 Page 2 3) Evaluate the presence of groundwater impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from the nearby 487 Cabot road property. To evaluate this issue, Geomatrix conducted environmental due diligence activities in April and May 2004; the results indicated that VOCs in groundwater would not limit the continual use of the property for commercial/industrial purposes. Geomatrix also conducted a soil vapor survey to evaluate the intrusion of VOCs into the existing warehouse structure. The results indicated that soil vapors beneath the warehouse do not contain VOCs that would limit the use of the property for residential or commercial/industrial purposes. Our report of results was submitted to the San Mateo County Health Services Agency (SMCHSA) and no additional environmental 4ork was requested; therefore, no additional work regarding this issues should be required at this time. 4) The presence of existing groundwater monitoring well MW -12. This well was installed in January 2003, as indicated in ACC's December 2002 Phase I site assessment. The well is located along the southern boundary of the Site adjacent to the existing railroad right -of -way. The well currently is monitored quarterly by TEC Accutite as part of environmental activities associated with the 487 Cabot Road property, as per the requirements of the SMCHSA. Samples collected from the well have historically contained low concentrations of VOCs (i.e., below regulatory thresholds). Access to this well should be preserved and the results of the groundwater monitoring activities periodically reviewed to evaluate potential impacts to the Site. 5) The presence of an undocumented groundwater monitoring well. This well was discovered during groundwater monitoring associated with the 487 Cabot Road property in 2005. No documentation of the well existed at the SMCHSA. Due to low concentrations of VOCs in groundwater samples collected from this well, Slough chose to decommission the well, Well decommissioning activities were performed as per SMCHSA requirements and are documented in Geomatrix's December 2005 report. No additional follow- up r arding_this issue should be required. 3 Groundwater Monitoring Well Decommissioning Report prepared by Geomatrix in December 2005. I:\Project \9000s \9798.003\Memo to Diane Fioresca Smitli 06.8,06.doe APPENDIX 4.7 Noise Level Calculations Existing Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 2,461 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 5,062 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 14,641 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 4,873 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 6,186 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 5,557 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as ae alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB (A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2015 Without Project Noise Levels 2015 No Project Page 1 ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 2,283 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 59.5 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 10,845 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.2 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 21,027 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 65.6 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 7,123 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 60.9 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 6,479 35 39 0 0 3.0% Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 6,127 35 56 0 0 8.0 % Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (%) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60 Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52 Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06 Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2015 With Project Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 2,520 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 59.9 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 10,845 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.2 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 21,442 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 65.6 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 7,130 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 60.9 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 6,645 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0% 64.0 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 6,616 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0% 63.4 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2035 Without Project Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 3,271 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 61.1 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 11,529 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.4 Oyster Point Blvd. (5-7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 29,829 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 67.1 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 8,421 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 61.6 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 7,515 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0% 64.5 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 9,217 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0% 64.8 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard' site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2035 With Project Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 3,485 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 61.3 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 11,529 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.4 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 30,211 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 67.1 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 8,429 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 61.6 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 7,666 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0% 64.6 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 9,594 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0% 65.0 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations r tt tt Volume (vph) 428 3 372 0 24 619 991 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 1538 3369 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 1538 3369 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 441 3 384 0 25 638 1022 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 441 1 405 0 0 638 1022 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.3 18.3 30.6 45.6 79.2 Effective Green, g (s) 18.3 18.3 30.6 45.6 79.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.43 0.75 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 581 268 982 747 2593 v/s Ratio Prot c0 0.12 c0.37 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.00 0.41 0.85 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 41.3 35.8 30.0 26.7 4.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.7 0.0 1.3 9.4 0.5 Delay (s) 46.9 35.8 43.2 36.1 5.0 Level of Service D D D D A Approach Delay (s) 46.8 43.2 16.9 0.0 Approach 'LOS D D B A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations 0.97 tt tt r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 189 365 1291 128 31 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 3406 3438 1503 3335 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 195 376 1331 132 32 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 41 0 41 Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 376 1331 91 32 7 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 92.9 72.5 72.5 3.6 16.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 92.9 72.5 72.5 3.6 16.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.88 0.69 0.69 0.03 0.16 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 3013 2374 1038 114 240 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.11 c0.39 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.12 0.56 0.09 0.28 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 422 0.8 8.2 5.4 49.4 37.6 Progression Factor 1.02 0.25 1.51 2.97 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 7.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 50.2 0.3 13.3 16.1 49.9 37.6 Level of Service D A B B D D Approach Delay (s) 17.3 13.5 42.5 Approach 'LOS B B D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations )) tO 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 104 1085 54 211 230 188 60 262 686 838 323 177 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 4901 1736 3471 1553 1703 1792 2682 3335 3438 1514 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 107 1119 56 218 237 194 62 270 707 864 333 182 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 173 0 0 11 0 0 115 Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 1170 0 218 237 21 62 270 696 864 333 67' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 0.07 0.04 3 0.26 c0.26 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.11 4 0.94 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot 37.3' 23.2 Prot Progression Factor Perm Prot pt+ov' Prot 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 1.16 7 4 10.6 1 6 67 5 2 12.4' Permitted' Phases 0.0 0.0' Delay (s) 27.8 48.0 4 66.0 24.7 63.1 52.5 85.3 48.1 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 30.1 27.7 C 14.0 11.6 11.6 6.6 16.5 30.5 28.8 38.7 38.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.16 0.29 0.27 0.37 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 956 1293 231 383 172 107 282 779' 915' 1267 558 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.24 c0.13 0.07 0.04 c0.15 0.26 c0.26 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.90 0.94 0.62 0.12 0.58 0.96 0.89 0.94 0.26 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 37.4 45.1 44.6 42.1 47.9 43.9 35.7' 37.3' 23.2 21..9' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.51 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.71 1.16 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 10.6 42.2 2.0 0.1 4.7 41.4 12.4' 15.7' 0.0 0.0' Delay (s) 27.8 48.0 66.0 24.7 63.1 52.5 85.3 48.1 48.7 16.5 25.5 Level of Service C D E C E D F D' D B C Approach Delay (s) 46.3 50.1 58.0 37.9 Approach 'LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 629 964 1016 308 239 515 390 110 1475 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 3124 1365 3367 3471 2674 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 648 994 1047 318 246 531 402 113 1521 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 365 0 0 402 0 0 37 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 648 1373 263 318 246 129 402 113 1484 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 44.1 HCM Level of Service 8 D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1.07 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5 Effective Green, g (s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.50 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 921 1309 572 337 843 649 1219 661 1367 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.44 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.06 c0.54 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.70 1.05 0.46 0.94 0.29 0.20 0.33 0.17 1.09 Progression Factor 0.80 0.74 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.15 0.51 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.9 30.3 1.0 34.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 44.8 Delay (s) 28.2 52.9 19.7 81.0 33.3 32.3 22.0 26.2 58.1 Level of Service C D B F C C C C E' Approach Delay (s) 39.2 46.7 49.2 0.0 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 1870 0 92 14 102 1 3 3 129 1192 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 1770 1583 1630 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1928 0 95 14 105 1 3 3 133 1229 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 95 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 138 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1928 0 0 14 105 1 0 0 136 1091' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type NA custom Perm custom Protected 'Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G' (s) 66.9 0.0 2.0 27.8 0.8 22.8 93.2' Effective Green, g (s) 66.9 0.0 2.0 27.8 0.8 22.8 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.01 0.22 0.89' Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 20 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2187 0 34 419 12 403 2474 v/s Ratio Prot c0.56 c0.01 0.07 c0.00 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07" v/c Ratio 0.88 0.00 0.41 0.25 0.09 0.34 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 15.8 52.5 50.9 30.4 51.7 34.7 1.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 20.62' Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.0 2.9 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 Delay (s) 20.2 52.5 53.9 31.8 52.9 29.6 22.5' Level of Service C D D C D C C Approach 'Delay (s) 21.7 34.4 52.9 23.2 Approach LOS C C D C HCM Average Control Delay 22.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 266 1602 571 109 712 12 276 40 199 25 54 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4863 1752 5024 4942 1571 1816 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 1652 589 112 734 12 285 41 205 26 56 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 107 0 0 0 51 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 2241 0 112 745 0 285 139 0 0 82 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) HCM Average Control Delay 231.8 HCM Level of Service 12 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1.37 6 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type Prot Prot c Critical Lane Group Split Split custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 8 8 Permitted' Phases 6' 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 16.0 16.0 6.5 42.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 16.0 16.0 6.5 42.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.28 0.05 0.59 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 1340 95 2944 612 195 91 511' v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.46 0.06 0.15 0.06 c0.09 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.67 1.67 1.18 0.25 0.47 0.71 0.90 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 327.1 305.9 148.3 0.0 0.2 9.8 62.8 0.0' Delay (s) 385.7 352.7 209.4 13.1 52.8 64.2 123.8 29.9 Level of Service F F F B D E F C Approach Delay (s) 356.3 38.7 58.1 78.6 Approach 'LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 231.8 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 129.2 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 150.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 1834 622 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3902 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1891 641 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1891 641 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 43.6 43.6 Effective Green, g (s) 43.6 43.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1317 534 v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.44 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 42.8 42.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 200.5 107.2 Delay (s) 243.3 150.0 Level of Service F F Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt r Volume (vph) 2626 337 54 585 87 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3468 1752 3505 3433 1559 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3468 1752 3505 3433 1559 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 2707 347 56 603 90 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3048 0 56 603 90 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 91.0 17.7 101.7 24.8 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 91.0 17.7 101.7 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.12 0.68 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2104 207 2376 568 258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.88 c0.03 c0.17 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.45 0.27 0.25 0.16 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 60.3 9.4 53.7 52.6 Progression Factor 0.73 1.55 0.21 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 202.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 224.2 93.6 2.0 53.7 52.6 Level of Service F F A D D Approach Delay (s) 224.2 9.8 53.3 Approach 'LOS F A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 27 1612 867 71 383 0 214 3 216 0 3 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1541 1752 3505 3433 1563 1687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 1662 894 73 395 0 221 3 223 0 3 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 236 0 0 0 0 145 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 1662 658 73 395 0 221 81 0 0 4 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 45.4 45.4 6.8 48.0 10.8 10.8 10.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.2 45.4 45.4 6.8 48.0 10.8 10.8 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.61 0.61 0.09 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 99 2142 933 159 2243 391 225 243 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.47 c0.04 0.11 0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.43 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.78 0.70 0.46 0.18 0.57 0.36 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 11.0 10.2 32.4 5.5 29.9 29.0 27.5 Progression Factor 0.96 0.85 1.59 1.28 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 1.1 1.7 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 32.9 10.5 17.9 42.2 4.4 31.0 29.3 27.6 Level of Service C B B D A C C C Approach Delay (s) 13.3 10.3 30.2 27.6 Approach 'LOS B B C C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 249 422 86 240 156 73 35 453 215 776 527 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1646 1339 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001' 2963 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 257 435 89 247 161 75 36 467 222 800 543 133 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 692 67 247 161 8 36 467 222 800 655 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D Intersection Summary 45 HCM Average Control Delay 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 7 F 3 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split G Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) pt+ov' Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.3 32.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 17.7 28.7 29.0 37.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 32.3 32.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 17.7 28.7 29.0' 37.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.36 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 502 408 318 172 144 129 512 371 821' 1057 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.08 c0.10 0.02 c0.15 0.16 c0.27 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.38 0.17 0.78 0.94 0.05 0.28 0.91 0.60 0.97 0.62 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.12 2.01 0.94 0.93 0.84 0.85 0.90 Incremental Delay,' d2 182.5 0.1 11.2 49.4 0.2 1.1 19.4 2.0 23.2' 2.4 Delay (s) 219.4 27.1 63.4 102.3 86.3 43.8 59.8 30.2 55.5 27.7 Level of Service F C E F F D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 197.4 79.9 50.0 42.8 Approach 'LOS F E D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 84.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.9% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r + ft r Volume (vph) 0 0 125 778 166 65 35 136 0 0 529 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 3335 1733 3371 3438 1450 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 3335 1733 3371 3438 1450 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 129 802 171 67 36 140 0 0 545 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 129 802 227 0 0 176 0 0 545 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type Over Split Split Perm' Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 56.3 56.3 15.1 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 56.3 56.3 15.1 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 223 1771 920 480 733 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.24 0.13 0.05 c0 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.58 0.45 0.25 0.37 0.74 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 15.3 13.4 41.1 39.0 33..1' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.3 0.8 0.6 0.1 4.1 0.1' Delay (s) 46.8 16.2 14.1 28.5 43.1 33.2 Level of Service D B B C D C Approach Delay (s) 46.8 15.7 28.5 42.1 Approach 'LOS D B C D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r ))) + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 ft r Volume (vph) 135 219 129 441 219 182 213 160 513 163 723 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1564 3279 1538 4848 1810 1538 1703 3406 1494' 1719 3438 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 139 226 133 455 226 188 220 165 529 168 745 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 117 0 0 129 0 0 466 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 247 16 455 226 59 220 165 63 168' 745 30 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 c0.12 7 c0.13 0.05 3 0.10 c0.22 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 4 0.04 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split 44.3 Prot Split 41.8 Prot Prot 43.2 Perm Prot 24.6 Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.34 Permitted' Phases 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.5 7.7 0.2 13.8 0.2 6 0.6' 1.3 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.2 12.7 12.7 46.6 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.40 0.40 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 396 186 819 306 260 276 408 179' 756' 1365 600 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 c0.12 0.04 c0.13 0.05 0.10 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.56 0.74 0.23 0.80 0.40 0.35 0.22 0.55 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 44.3 44.3 41.4 40.4 41.8 38.1 42.7 43.2 42.9' 18.4 24.6 19..7' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.90 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.39 0.34 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.5 7.7 0.2 13.8 0.2 0.4' 0.6' 1.3 0.1' Delay (s) 48.9 46.5 41.5 36.3 45.1 41.2 56.5 43.4 43.3 7.1 10.9 6.7 Level of Service D D D D D D E D D' A B A Approach Delay (s) 45.7 39.7 46.5 9.9 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 + rr ) ttt r 0.97 0 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 123 247 525 24 106 7 448 941 787 6 178 288 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 1845 2760 1752 5036 1518 3400 3239 1752 1845 2687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 255 541 25 109 7 462 970 811 6 184 297 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 158 0 0 7 0 117 0 0 0 254 Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 255 383 25 109 0 462 1664 0 6 184 43 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 B 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 19.6 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 106.0 pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 7 4 15 3 8 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 6 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 14.8 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.9 6.9 52.9 67.1 1.2 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 14.8 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.9 6.9 52.9 67.1 1.2' 15.4 15.4' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.17 0.71 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.50 0.63 0.01 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 475 315 1953 60 328 99 1697 2050 20' 268 390 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.14 c0.51 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.81 0.20 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.27 0.81 0.30 0.69 0.11 Progression Factor 0.91 0.82 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.71 1.08 0.73 1.26 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 11.8 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.0 6.9' 4.8 0.0' Delay (s) 37.0 46.6 2.0 51.9 47.6 46.3 13.1 12.4 63.2 36.1 49.6 Level of Service D D A D D D B B E D DD Approach Delay (s) 19.1 48.3 12.5 44.7 Approach 'LOS B D B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 19 65 28 219 280 15 94 544 104 1618 87 445 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1530 1752 1823 1752 3505 1568 3390 2760 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 67 29 226 289 15 97 561 107 1668' 90 459 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 27 0 2 0 0 0 107 0 0 87 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 87 2 226 302 0 97 561 0 1758' 0 372 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service E 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot H Prot Analysis Period (min) NA 15 Prot Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7 57.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7' 57.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.54 0.54 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 121 174 334 116 509 0 1845' 1502 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.13 0.17 0.06 c0.16 c0.52 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 1.30 0.91 0.84 1.10 0.00 0.95 0.25 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.08 0.99 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.4 0.0 163.7 25.5 36.2 70.4 0.0 12.4' 0.4 Delay (s) 51.6 45.0 215.6 71.4 84.8 120.0 53.0 35.3 13.1 Level of Service D D F E F F D' D B Approach Delay (s) 49.9 132.9 106.2 30.7 Approach 'LOS D F F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 62.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 43 26 18 234 10 99 24 372 781 479 501 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1535 1665 1675 1515 1752 3001 1338 3400 3436 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 44 27 19 241 10 102 25 384 805 494 516 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 0 90 0 189 298 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 71 1 125 126 12 25 598 104 494 576 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) B Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split B Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 6.7 12.5 12.5 12.5 3.6 27.4 27.4 43.4 67.2 Effective Green, g,(s) 6.7 6.7 12.5 12.5 12.5 3.6 27.4 27.4' 43.4 67.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.41 0.63 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 113 97 196 198 179 60 776 346 1392' 2178 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.08 c0.08 0.01 c0.20 c0.15 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.01 0.64 0.64 0.07 0.42 0.77 0.30 0.35 0.26 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.80 Incremental Delay,' d2 7.6 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.1 1.7 4.3 0.2 0.5' 0.2 Delay (s) 56.1 46.6 49.5 49.4 41.6 51.9 40.7 31.8 15.9 15.5 Level of Service E D D D D D D C' B B Approach Delay (s) 54.1 47.2 38.0 15.7 Approach 'LOS D D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 85 1327 603 48 98 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 4988 4831 1719 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 4988 4831 1719 1496 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 13618 622 49 101 108 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 13618 667 0 101 11 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.82 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 4113 3409 172 150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.27 0.14 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.33 0.20 0.59 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 2.2 5.3 45.6 43.2 Progression Factor 0.89 1.12 0.64 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.6 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 Delay (s) 42.3 2.5 3.5 48.9 43.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 4.9 3.5 46.0 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt rr Volume (vph) 1364 41 27 425 226 1011 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5049 1752 5036 1752 2694 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5049 1752 5036 1752 2694 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1427 42 28 438 233 1042 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 0 158 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1466 0 28 438 233 884 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 50.1 3.8 57.9 40.1 40.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 50.1 3.8 57.9 40.1 40.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.04 0.55 0.38 0.38 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2386 63 2751 663 1019 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 c0.02 0.09 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.44 0.16 0.35 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 50.1 12.0 23.6 30.5 Progression Factor 0.50 1.06 0.52 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 1.8 0.1 0.1 7.7 Delay (s) 11.6 55.0 6.4 23.7 38.2 Level of Service B D A C D Approach Delay (s) 11.6 9.3 35.5 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) ttt r )) tt 0.97 t r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 228 2079 88 246 338 43 79 145 926 257 198 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1538 3400 4937 1752 1845 1523 3400 3414 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 235 2143 91 254 348 44 81 149 955 265' 204 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 28 0 14 0 0 0 111 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 235 2143 63 254 378 0 81 149 844 265' 225 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E 18 F 3 E Intersection Summary 13 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 8 HCM Average Control Delay 1 136.3 4' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 106.0 Perm Prot 16.0 Prot Perm Prot 116.2% Protected Phases 5 2 H 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 3 8 15 7 4 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 17.9 44.2 44.2 8.0 34.3 19.8 29.8 29.8 8.0 18.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 17.9 44.2 44.2 8.0 34.3 19.8 29.8 29.8 8.0' 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.32 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 299 2120 641 257 1598 327 519 428 257' 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.42 c0.07 0.08 0.05 0.08 c0.08 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.55 v/c Ratio 0.79 1.01 0.10 0.99 0.24 0.25 0.29 1.97 1.03 0.39 Progression Factor 1.22 0.81 0.78 1.39 1.66 0.81 0.80 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 8.9 19.4 0.2 50.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 443.2 64.4 0.2 Delay (s) 60.3 44.6 14.9 118.2 43.8 29.8 23.8 472.6 113.4 39.3 Level of Service E D B F D C C F' F D Approach Delay (s) 45.0 73.1 385.9 78.2 Approach 'LOS D E F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 136.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 116.2% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r )) tt 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 890 2125 247 30 368 110 121 169 517 204 175 137 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1542 3400 4847 1752 3505 1535 1752 1845 2698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 918 2191 255 31 379 113 125 174 533 210 180 141' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 29 0 51 0 0 0 146 0 0 119 Lane Group Flow (vph) 918 2191 226 31 441 0 125 174 387 210 180 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.09 0.07 5 c0.12 1 v/s Ratio Perm 5 0.15 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 15 0.01' v/c Ratio 1.05 3 0.37 0.27 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 42.7' Perm Prot Progression Factor 0.74 Split 0.49 Perm Split 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 1.00 5 2 263.7 8 8 2.4 4 4 30.1 Permitted' Phases 2.7 0.0' 6 55.3 286.7 11.5 36.6 30.9 8' 30.0 68.2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 41.4 41.4 3.6 18.0 D 28.3 28.3 28.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 874 1382 602 115 823 468 936 410 276' 291 425 v/s Ratio Prot 0.27 c0.62 0.01 c0.09 0.07 0.05 c0.12 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.25' 0.01' v/c Ratio 1.05 1.59 0.37 0.27 0.54 0.27 0.19 0.94 0.76 0.62 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 39.5 32.3 23.1 49.9 40.2 30.7 30.0 38.1 42.7' 41.7 37..9' Progression Factor 0.74 0.71 0.49 0.73 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 26.0 263.7 0.2 0.5 2.4 0.1 0.0 30.1 10.6' 2.7 0.0' Delay (s) 55.3 286.7 11.5 36.6 30.9 30.8 30.0 68.2 53.3 44.4 37.9 Level of Service E F B D C C C E' D D fD Approach Delay (s) 202.7 31.3 54.6 46.2 Approach 'LOS F C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 146.3 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 r 0.97 Volume (vph) 3 2088 156 62 330 13 87 37 669 12 28 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.90 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5021 1752 3485 1539 1470 1807 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.68 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 2153 161 64 340 13 90 38 690 12' 29 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 80 80 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 2306 0 64 351 0 0 338 320 0 42 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 58.4 7.2 64.8 27.9 27.9 27.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 0.8 58.4 7.2 64.8 27.9 27.9' 27.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.55 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 2766 119 2130 376 387 326 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.46 c0.04 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.22 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.83 0.54 0.16 0.90 0.83 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 52.3 19.8 47.8 8.9 37.7 36.8' 29.8 Progression Factor 1.12 0.48 0.81 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.0 1.9 2.3 0.2 23.3 13.0 0.1 Delay (s) 60.7 11.5 40.8 7.0 61.0 49.8 29.8 Level of Service E B D A E D C Approach Delay (s) 11.6 12.2 55.5 29.8 Approach 'LOS B B E C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt Volume (vph) 341 2428 339 17 16 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3479 1628 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3479 1628 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 352 2503 349 18 16 68 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 64 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 352 2503 364 0 20 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 26.1 91.7 61.6 6.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 26.1 91.7 61.6 6.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.87 0.58 0.06 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 436 3062 2022 97 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.71 0.10 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.82 0.18 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 3.3 10.4 47.5 Progression Factor 1.25 0.90 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 6.5 1.5 0.2 1.1 Delay (s) 53.5 4.5 10.6 48.5 Level of Service D A B D Approach Delay (s) 10.5 10.6 48.5 Approach 'LOS B B D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 73: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 *' r Volume (vph) 197 854 3 1 321 33 0 0 1 52 1 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.86 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3490 1611 1776 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 203 880 3 1 331 34 0 0 1 54 1 154 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 133 Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 883 0 1 354 0 0 0 0' 0' 55 21' Turn Type Prot 0.2 0.6 Prot 0.0 0.8 Perm Delay (s) Perm 5.6 Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 14..9 3 8 A B 2 B 6 B Permitted Phases 7.9 8.7 14.5 15.2 2 Approach LOS 6 A 6 Actuated Green, G' (s) 7.2 20.9 0.6 14.3 5.2 5.2 5.2' Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 20.9 0.6 14.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.54 0.02 0.37 0.13 0.13 0.13' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 329 1910 27 1290 216 191 213 v/s Ratio Prot c0.1!1 c0.25 0.00 0.10 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.46 0.04 0.27 0.00 0.29 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 14.5 5.5 18.8 8.6 14.5 15.1 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 Delay (s) 17.9 5.6 19.3 8.7 14.5 15.9 14..9 Level of Service B A B A B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 7.9 8.7 14.5 15.2 Approach LOS A A B B HCM Average Control Delay 9.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 38.7 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 116: Forbes & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 401 tt 0 677 606 r Volume (vph) 283 527 76 150 497 444 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.4 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.2 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 17.9 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3186 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3186 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 292 543 78 155 512 458 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 133 0 0 283 Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 543 100 0 512 175 Turn Type Prot Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 22.0 7.0 18.6 18.6 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 22.0 7.0 18.6 18.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.45 0,14 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 401 1602 459 677 606 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.15 0.03 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.34 0.22 0.76 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 8.6 18.4 13.0 10.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 0.1 0.2 4.8 0.3 Delay (s) 23.9 8.7 18.6 17.9 10.7 Level of Service C A B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 14.0 18.6 14.5 Approach LOS B B B HCM Average Control Delay 14.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 23 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 456 268 98 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 22 694 95 178 164 13 66 9 145 26 13 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 715 98 184 169 13 68 9 149 27 13 11 Volume Total (vph) 380 456 268 98 227 52 Volume Left (vph) 23 0 184 0 68 27 Volume Right (vph) 0 98 0 13 149 11 Hadj (s) 0.06 -0.12 0,38 -0.06 -,0.30 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 6.1 5.9 7.0 6.5 6.2 7.1 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.64 0.75 0,52 0.18 0.39 0.10 Capacity (veh /h) 575 595 488 524 536 455 Control Delay (s) 18.3 23.2 16.1 9.7 13.2 10.9 Approach Delay (s) 21.0 14.4 13.2 10.9 Approach 'LOS C B B B HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B' Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations r tt tt Volume (vph) 428 3 372 0 24 619 986 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 1538 3369 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3335 1538 3369 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 441 3 384 0 25 638 1016 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 441 1 405 0 0 638 1016 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.3 18.3 30.6 45.6 79.2 Effective Green, g (s) 18.3 18.3 30.6 45.6 79.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.29 0.43 0.75 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 581 268 982 747 2593 v/s Ratio Prot c0 0.12 c0.37 c0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.00 0.41 0.85 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 41.3 35.8 30.0 26.7 4.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.7 0.0 1.3 9.4 0.4 Delay (s) 46.9 35.8 43.3 36.1 4.9 Level of Service D D D D A Approach Delay (s) 46.8 43.3 17.0 0.0 Approach 'LOS D D B A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations 0.97 tt tt r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 189 365 1286 128 31 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 3406 3438 1503 3335 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 195 376 1326 132 32 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 41 0 41 Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 376 1326 91 32 7 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 92.9 72.5 72.5 3.6 16.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 92.9 72.5 72.5 3.6 16.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.88 0.69 0.69 0.03 0.16 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 3013 2374 1038 114 240 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.11 c0.39 c0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.12 0.56 0.09 0.28 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 422 0.8 8.2 5.4 49.4 37.6 Progression Factor 1.02 0.25 1.51 2.99 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 7.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 50.2 0.3 13.2 16.2 49.9 37.6 Level of Service D A B B D D Approach Delay (s) 17.3 13.5 42.5 Approach 'LOS B B D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations )) tO 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 104 1077 54 211 228 188 60 262 685 833 323 177 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 4901 1736 3471 1553 1703 1792 2682 3335 3438 1514 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 107 1110 56 218 235 194 62 270 706 859 333 182 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 173 0 0 11 0 0 115 Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 1161 0 218 235 21 62 270 695 859' 333 67' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 37.3 3 D D E D Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 105.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 4 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 30.2 27.6 14.1 11.5 11.5 6.6 16.5 30.6 28.8 38.7 38.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 30.2 27.6 14.1 11.5 11.5 6.6 16.5 30.6 28.8' 38.7 38.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.26 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.16 0.29 0.27 0.37 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 959 1288 233 380 170 107 282 782 915' 1267 558 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.24 c0.13 0.07 0.04 c0.15 0.26 c0.26 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.90 0.94 0.62 0.12 0.58 0.96 0.89 0.94 0.26 0.12 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.51 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.71 1.17 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 10.3 39.9 2.0 0.1 4.7 41.4 11.7 14.7' 0.0 0.0' Delay (s) 27.8 47.7 63.7 24.7 63.6 52.5 85.3 47.2 47.8 16.5 25.7 Level of Service C D E C E D F D' D B C Approach Delay (s) 46.1 49.5 57.4 37.3 Approach 'LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 629 950 1016 308 237 505 390 110 1475 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3335 3122 1365 3367 3471 2674 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 648 979 1047 318 244 521 402 113 1521 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 365 0 0 394 0 0 39 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 648 1357 263 318 244 127 402 113 1483 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 43.1 HCM Level of Service 8 D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1.07 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5 Effective Green, g (s) 29.0 44.0 44.0 10.5 25.5 25.5 38.0 38.0 52.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.50 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 921 1308 572 337 843 649 1219 661 1367 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.43 0.09 0.07 0.12 0.06 c0.54 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.70 1.04 0.46 0.94 0.29 0.19 0.33 0.17 1.08 Progression Factor 0.80 0.74 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.15 0.50 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.9 26.5 1.1 34.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 44.4 Delay (s) 28.3 49.0 20.0 81.0 33.2 32.3 22.0 26.2 57.6 Level of Service C D B F C C C C E' Approach Delay (s) 37.2 46.8 48.9 0.0 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 1870 0 92 14 102 1 3 3 129 1192 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1583 1770 1583 1630 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1928 0 95 14 105 1 3 3 133 1229 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 95 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 138 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1928 0 0 14 105 1 0 0 136 1091' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type NA custom Perm custom Protected 'Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G' (s) 66.9 0.0 2.0 27.8 0.8 22.8 93.2' Effective Green, g (s) 66.9 0.0 2.0 27.8 0.8 22.8 93.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.01 0.22 0.89' Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 20 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2187 0 34 419 12 403 2474 v/s Ratio Prot c0.56 c0.01 0.07 c0.00 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07" v/c Ratio 0.88 0.00 0.41 0.25 0.09 0.34 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 15.8 52.5 50.9 30.4 51.7 34.7 1.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 20.63' Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 0.0 2.9 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 Delay (s) 20.2 52.5 53.9 31.8 52.9 29.6 22.5' Level of Service C D D C D C C Approach 'Delay (s) 21.7 34.4 52.9 23.2 Approach LOS C C D C HCM Average Control Delay 22.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 266 1588 571 109 700 12 276 40 199 25 54 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4862 1752 5024 4942 1571 1816 1568 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 1637 589 112 722 12 285 41 205 26 56 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 107 0 0 0 51 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 2226 0 112 733 0 285 139 0 0 82 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) HCM Average Control Delay 227.2 HCM Level of Service 12 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1.36 6 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type Prot Prot c Critical Lane Group Split Split custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 8 8 Permitted' Phases 6' 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 16.0 16.0 6.5 42.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 12.0 35.6 7.0 75.7 16.0 16.0 6.5 42.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.28 0.05 0.59 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 1340 95 2944 612 195 91 511' v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.46 0.06 0.15 0.06 c0.09 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.67 1.66 1.18 0.25 0.47 0.71 0.90 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 327.1 300.9 148.3 0.0 0.2 9.8 62.8 0.0' Delay (s) 385.7 347.7 209.4 13.0 52.8 64.2 123.8 29.9 Level of Service F F F B D E F C Approach Delay (s) 351.8 39.0 58.1 78.6 Approach 'LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 227.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.36 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 129.2 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 148.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 1804 622 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3902 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1860 641 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1860 641 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 43.6 43.6 Effective Green, g (s) 43.6 43.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1317 534 v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.41 1.20 Uniform Delay, d1 42.8 42.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 190.1 107.2 Delay (s) 232.9 150.0 Level of Service F F Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt r Volume (vph) 2610 309 54 583 77 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3473 1752 3505 3433 1559 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3473 1752 3505 3433 1559 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 2691 319 56 601 79 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3004 0 56 601 79 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 91.0 17.7 101.7 24.8 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 91.0 17.7 101.7 24.8 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.12 0.68 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2107 207 2376 568 258 v/s Ratio Prot c0.86 c0.03 c0.17 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.43 0.27 0.25 0.14 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 29.5 60.3 9.4 53.5 52.6 Progression Factor 0.73 1.55 0.21 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 192.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 214.0 93.6 2.0 53.5 52.6 Level of Service F F A D D Approach Delay (s) 214.0 9.8 53.1 Approach 'LOS F A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 27 1612 851 71 383 0 212 3 216 0 3 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1541 1752 3505 3433 1563 1687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 28 1662 877 73 395 0 219 3 223 0 3 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 232 0 0 0 0 145 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 28 1662 645 73 395 0 219 81 0 0 4 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 14.9 HCM Level of Service 1 B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.70 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 45.4 45.4 6.8 48.0 10.8 10.8 10.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.2 45.4 45.4 6.8 48.0 10.8 10.8 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.61 0.61 0.09 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 99 2142 933 159 2243 391 225 243 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.47 c0.04 0.11 0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.42 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.78 0.69 0.46 0.18 0.56 0.36 0.02 Progression Factor 0.96 0.85 1.58 1.28 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 1.1 1.6 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 32.9 10.5 17.4 42.2 4.4 31.0 29.3 27.6 Level of Service C B B D A C C C Approach Delay (s) 13.1 10.3 30.2 27.6 Approach 'LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 249 417 86 240 155 73 35 453 214 756 527 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1646 1339 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001' 2963 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 257 430 89 247 160 75 36 467 221 779' 543 133 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 22 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 687 67 247 160 8 36 467 221 779' 655 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D Intersection Summary 45 HCM Average Control Delay 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 7 F 3 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split F Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) pt+ov' Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.3 32.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 17.9 28.9 28.8 37.8 Effective Green, g (s) 32.3 32.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 8.9 17.9 28.9 28.8' 37.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.36 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 502 408 318 172 144 129 518 374' 815' 1057 v/s Ratio Prot c0.42 0.08 c0.10 0.02 c0.15 0.16 c0.26 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.01 v/c Ratio 1.37 0.16 0.78 0.93 0.05 0.28 0.90 0.59 0.96 0.62 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.16 1.16 2.10 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.84 0.90 Incremental Delay,' d2 178.2 0.1 11.2 48.3 0.2 1.1 17.7 1.9 19.7' 2.4 Delay (s) 215.1 27.1 65.0 102.9 89.9 44.5 58.2 30.6 51.6 27.7 Level of Service F C E F F D E C' D C Approach Delay (s) 193.5 81.5 49.1 40.5 Approach 'LOS F F D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 82.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r 0.97 0.97 + ft r Volume (vph) 0 0 124 760 166 65 34 136 0 0 528 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 3335 1733 3372 3438 1450 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 128 784 171 67 35 140 0 0 544 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 128 784 227 0 0 175 0 0 544 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type Over Split Split Perm' Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 56.4 56.4 15.0 22.6 22.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 15.0 56.4 56.4 15.0 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 1774 922 477 733 309 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.24 0.13 0.05 c0 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.58 0.44 0.25 0.37 0.74 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 42.5 15.2 13.4 41.2 39.0 33..1' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.4 0.8 0.6 0.1 4.1 0.1' Delay (s) 46.9 16.0 14.0 28.8 43.0 33.2 Level of Service D B B C D C Approach Delay (s) 46.9 15.5 28.8 42.1 Approach 'LOS D B C D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r ))) + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 ft r Volume (vph) 135 218 129 429 219 182 213 160 513 163 723 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1564 3279 1538 4848 1810 1538 1703 3406 1494' 1719 3438 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 139 225 133 442 226 188 220 165 529 168 745 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 117 0 0 129 0 0 466 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph) 118 246 16 442 226 59 220 165 63 168' 745 30 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 c0.12 7 c0.13 0.05 3 0.10 c0.22 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 4 0.04 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split 44.3 Prot Split 41.8 Prot Prot 43.2 Perm Prot 24.6 Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.34 Permitted' Phases 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.3 7.7 0.2 13.8 0.2 6 0.6' 1.3 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 12.8 12.8 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.2 12.7 12.7 46.6 42.1 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.40 0.40 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 396 186 819 306 260 276 408 179' 756' 1365 600 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 c0.12 0.04 c0.13 0.05 0.10 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.09 0.54 0.74 0.23 0.80 0.40 0.35 0.22 0.55 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 44.3 44.3 41.4 40.3 41.8 38.1 42.7 43.2 42.9' 18.4 24.6 19..7' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.88 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.39 0.34 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.6 2.2 0.1 0.3 7.7 0.2 13.8 0.2 0.4' 0.6' 1.3 0.1' Delay (s) 48.9 46.5 41.5 35.6 44.6 41.1 56.5 43.4 43.3 7.1 10.9 6.7 Level of Service D D D D D D E D D' A B A Approach Delay (s) 45.7 39.2 46.5 9.9 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 + rr ) ttt r 0.97 0 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 123 246 525 24 97 7 448 939 776 6 178 285 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 1845 2760 1752 5036 1518 3400 3241 1752 1845 2687 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 127 254 541 25 100 7 462 968 800 6 184 294 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 158 0 0 7 0 116 0 0 0 251 Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 254 383 25 100 0 462 1652 0 6 184 43 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 B 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 19.5 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 106.0 pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 7 4 15 3 8 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 6 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.8 6.8 52.9 67.1 1.2 15.4 15.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 14.9 18.1 75.0 3.6 6.8 6.8 52.9 67.1 1.2' 15.4 15.4' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.17 0.71 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.50 0.63 0.01 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 478 315 1953 60 323 97 1697 2052 20' 268 390 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 0.14 c0.51 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.27 0.81 0.20 0.42 0.31 0.00 0.27 0.80 0.30 0.69 0.11 Progression Factor 0.91 0.82 0.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.70 1.08 0.73 1.27 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 11.7 0.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.9 7.0' 4.8 0.0' Delay (s) 37.0 46.5 2.0 51.9 47.6 46.4 13.1 12.2 63.3 36.4 50.2 Level of Service D D A D D D B B E D DD Approach Delay (s) 19.1 48.3 12.4 45.1 Approach 'LOS B D B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 19 65 28 219 278 15 94 544 104 1607 87 434 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1530 1752 1823 1752 3505 1568 3390 2760 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 20 67 29 226 287 15 97 561 107 1657' 90 447 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 27 0 2 0 0 0 107 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 87 2 226 300 0 97 561 0 1747 0 361' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service E 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot H Prot Analysis Period (min) NA 15 Prot Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 4 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7 57.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.4 8.4 10.5 19.4 7.0 15.4 0.0 57.7' 57.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.54 0.54 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 145 121 174 334 116 509 0 1845' 1502 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.13 0.16 0.06 c0.16 c0.52 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.02 1.30 0.90 0.84 1.10 0.00 0.95 0.24 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.08 0.99 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.4 0.0 163.9 24.8 36.2 70.4 0.0 11.7' 0.4 Delay (s) 51.6 45.0 215.9 70.7 84.8 120.0 53.0 34.4 13.0 Level of Service D D F E F F D' C B Approach Delay (s) 49.9 132.8 106.2 30.0 Approach 'LOS D F F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 61.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 43 26 18 231 10 99 24 370 770 468 501 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1789 1535 1665 1675 1515 1752 3002 1338 3400 3436 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 44 27 19 238 10 102 25 381 794 482 516 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 0 90 0 187 295 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 71 1 124 124 12 25 591 102 482' 576 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) B Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split B Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 6.7 12.4 12.4 12.4 3.6 27.2 27.2 43.7 67.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 6.7 6.7 12.4 12.4 12.4 3.6 27.2 27.2 43.7' 67.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.41 0.63 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 113 97 195 196 177 60 770 343 1402' 2182 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.07 0.07 0.01 c0.20 c0.14 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.01 0.64 0.63 0.07 0.42 0.77 0.30 0.34 0.26 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 1.82 Incremental Delay,' d2 7.6 0.0 4.9 4.8 0.1 1.7 4.2 0.2 0.5' 0.2 Delay (s) 56.1 46.6 49.6 49.5 41.7 51.9 40.6 31.9 15.7 15.6 Level of Service E D D D D D D C' B B Approach Delay (s) 54.1 47.2 38.0 15.7 Approach 'LOS D D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 85 1302 601 48 98 105 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 4988 4831 1719 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 4988 4831 1719 1496 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 1342 620 49 101 108 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 1342 665 0 101 11 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.6 87.4 74.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.82 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 141 4113 3409 172 150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.27 0.14 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.33 0.20 0.59 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 2.2 5.3 45.6 43.2 Progression Factor 0.89 1.10 0.68 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.6 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 Delay (s) 42.3 2.5 3.8 48.9 43.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 4.9 3.8 46.0 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt rr Volume (vph) 1359 41 27 423 226 978 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5048 1752 5036 1752 2694 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5048 1752 5036 1752 2694 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1401 42 28 436 233 1008 RTOR Reduction (vph) 3 0 0 0 0 162 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1440 0 28 436 233 846 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.4 3.8 59.2 38.8 38.8 Effective Green, g (s) 51.4 3.8 59.2 38.8 38.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.04 0.56 0.37 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2448 63 2813 641 986 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 c0.02 0.09 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.44 0.15 0.36 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 19.7 50.1 11.3 24.6 31.1 Progression Factor 0.51 1.04 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 1.8 0.1 0.1 7.3 Delay (s) 11.0 53.7 7.7 24.7 38.3 Level of Service B D A C D Approach Delay (s) 11.0 10.4 35.8 Approach 'LOS B B D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) ttt r )) tt 0.97 t r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 228 2021 88 242 336 43 79 145 924 257 198 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1538 3400 4936 1752 1845 1523 3400 3414 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 235 2084 91 249 346 44 81 149 953 265' 204 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 29 0 14 0 0 0 111 0 15 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 235 2084 62 249 376 0 81 149 842 265' 225 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E 18 F 3 E Intersection Summary 13 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 8 HCM Average Control Delay 1 133.8 4' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 106.0 Perm Prot 16.0 Prot Perm Prot 114.9% Protected Phases 5 2 H 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 3 8 15 7 4 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 17.9 44.2 44.2 8.0 34.3 19.8 29.8 29.8 8.0 18.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 17.9 44.2 44.2 8.0 34.3 19.8 29.8 29.8 8.0' 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.42 0.42 0.08 0.32 0.19 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 299 2120 641 257 1597 327 519 428 257' 580 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.41 c0.07 0.08 0.05 0.08 c0.08 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.55 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.98 0.10 0.97 0.24 0.25 0.29 1.97 1.03 0.39 Progression Factor 1.20 0.80 0.76 1.39 1.66 0.81 0.80 0.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 9.2 13.5 0.2 44.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 441.1 64.4 0.2 Delay (s) 60.0 38.0 14.6 112.7 43.8 29.8 23.8 470.5 113.4 39.3 Level of Service E D B F D C C F' F D Approach Delay (s) 39.3 70.6 384.1 78.2 Approach 'LOS D E F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 133.8 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 114.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r )) tt 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 844 2111 247 26 365 110 121 160 513 204 170 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1542 3400 4846 1752 3505 1535 1752 1845 2698 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 870 2176 255 27 376 113 125 165 529 210 175 139 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 29 0 51 0 0 0 146 0 0 117 Lane Group Flow (vph) 870 2176 226 27 438 0 125 165 383 210 175 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.09 0.07 5 c0.12 1 v/s Ratio Perm 5 0.15 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 15 0.01' v/c Ratio 1.00 3 0.37 0.23 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 42.7' Perm Prot Progression Factor 0.74 Split 0.50 Perm Split 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 1.00 5 2 258.9 8 8 2.4 4 4 28.0 Permitted' Phases 2.4 0.0' 6 37.1 282.3 11.8 35.9 30.6 8' 29.9 66.0 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 41.4 41.4 3.6 18.0 D 28.3 28.3 28.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 874 1382 602 115 823 468 936 410 276' 291 425 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 c0.61 0.01 c0.09 0.07 0.05 c0.12 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.25' 0.01' v/c Ratio 1.00 1.57 0.37 0.23 0.53 0.27 0.18 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 39.4 32.3 23.1 49.9 40.2 30.7 29.9 37.9' 42.7' 41.6 37..9' Progression Factor 0.74 0.73 0.50 0.71 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 8.1 258.9 0.2 0.4 2.4 0.1 0.0 28.0 10.6' 2.4 0.0' Delay (s) 37.1 282.3 11.8 35.9 30.6 30.8 29.9 66.0 53.3 43.9 37.9 Level of Service D F B D C C C E' D D fD Approach Delay (s) 196.8 30.9 53.3 46.1 Approach 'LOS F C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 142.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 112.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 r 0.97 Volume (vph) 3 2070 156 58 323 13 87 37 648 12 28 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.90 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5021 1752 3485 1542 1470 1807 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.69 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 2134 161 60 333 13 90 38 668 12' 29 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 77 81 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 2287 0 60 344 0 0 325 313 0 42 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 59.0 7.2 65.4 27.3 27.3 27.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 0.8 59.0 7.2 65.4 27.3 27.3 27.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.56 0.07 0.62 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 2795 119 2150 368 379 326 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.46 c0.03 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.21 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.82 0.50 0.16 0.88 0.83 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 52.3 19.1 47.7 8.6 37.8 37.1 30.2 Progression Factor 1.12 0.48 0.82 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.0 1.7 1.2 0.2 20.7 13.1 0.1 Delay (s) 60.7 10.9 40.3 6.7 58.5 50.2 30.3 Level of Service E B D A E D C Approach Delay (s) 11.0 11.7 54.4 30.3 Approach 'LOS B B D C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt Volume (vph) 302 2428 339 16 16 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3482 1632 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3482 1632 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 311 2503 349 16 16 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2 0 54 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 311 2503 363 0 19 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 23.8 91.8 64.0 6.2 Effective Green, g (s) 23.8 91.8 64.0 6.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.87 0.60 0.06 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 397 3065 2102 95 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.71 0.10 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.78 0.82 0.17 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 3.2 9.3 47.5 Progression Factor 1.26 0.93 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 6.1 1.6 0.2 1.1 Delay (s) 54.8 4.6 9.5 48.6 Level of Service D A A D Approach Delay (s) 10.1 9.5 48.6 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 73: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 *' r Volume (vph) 179 799 3 1 314 23 0 0 1 24 1 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.86 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3503 1611 1777 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 185 824 3 1 324 24 0 0 1 25 1 154 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 134 Lane Group Flow (vph) 185 827 0 1 340 0 0 0 0 0' 26 20 Turn Type Prot 0.2 0.7 Prot 0.0 0.3 Perm Delay (s) Perm 5.4 Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 14..7' 3 8 A B 2 B 6 B Permitted Phases 7.3 8.4 14.3 14.7 2 Approach LOS 6 A 6 Actuated Green, G' (s) 6.9 20.3 0.5 13.9 4.8 4.8 4.8' Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 20.3 0.5 13.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.01 0.37 0.13 0.13 0.13' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 1910 24 1295 206 194 202 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.23 0.00 0.10 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.43 0.04 0.26 0.00 0.13 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 14.0 5.2 18.3 8.3 14.3 14.6 14.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 Delay (s) 16.3 5.4 19.0 8.4 14.3 14.9 14..7' Level of Service B A B A B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 7.3 8.4 14.3 14.7 Approach LOS A A B B HCM Average Control Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 116: Forbes & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 401 tt 0 679 607 r Volume (vph) 281 527 75 150 497 428 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.3 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.2 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 17.7 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3185 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3185 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 290 543 77 155 512 441 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 133 0 0 272 Lane Group Flow (vph) 290 543 99 0 512 169 Turn Type Prot Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 21.9 6.9 18.6 18.6 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 21.9 6.9 18.6 18.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.45 0,14 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 401 1598 453 679 607 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.15 0.03 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.34 0.22 0.75 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 17.3 8.6 18.4 13.0 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.3 0.1 0.2 4.8 0.3 Delay (s) 23.7 8.7 18.7 17.7 10.6 Level of Service C A B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 13.9 18.7 14.4 Approach LOS B B B HCM Average Control Delay 14.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 23 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 455 253 95 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 22 693 95 166 159 13 66 9 144 26 13 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 714 98 171 164 13 68 9 148 27 13 11 Volume Total (vph) 380 455 253 95 226 52 Volume Left (vph) 23 0 171 0 68 27 Volume Right (vph) 0 98 0 13 148 11 Hadj (s) 0.06 -0.12 0,37 -0.06 -,0.30 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 6.1 5.9 6.9 6.5 6.2 7.1 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.64 0.74 0,49 0.17 0.39 0.10 Capacity (veh /h) 579 599 489 526 540 459 Control Delay (s) 18.0 22.7 15.2 9.7 13.1 10.8 Approach Delay (s) 20.5 13.7 13.1 10.8 Approach 'LOS C B B B HCM Level of Service C Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 04/10/20112035 AM Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations r tt tt Volume (vph) 612 143 656 0 13 820 888 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1553 3460 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1553 3460 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 631 147 676 0 13 845 915 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 631 93 688 0 0 845 915 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.9 32.9 35.1 77.5 115.6 Effective Green, g (s) 32.9 32.9 35.1 77.5 115.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.50 0.74 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 710 328 779 854 2548 v/s Ratio Prot Co. 19 c0.20 c0.49 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.28 0.88 0.99 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 59.8 51.7 58.5 38.8 7.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 13.0 0.5 13.7 27.9 0.4 Delay (s) 72.8 52.1 53.2 66.7 7.5 Level of Service E D D E A Approach Delay (s) 68.9 53.2 35.9 0.0 Approach 'LOS E D D A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations tt tt r r Volume (vph) 42 560 1480 20 109 158 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 3438 1504 3367 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 3438 1504 3367 1553 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 577 1526 21 112 163 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 4 0 153 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 577 1526 17 112 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 137.9 125.1 125.1 9.6 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 137.9 125.1 125.1 9.6 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.06 0.06 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 98 3068 2757 1206 207 88 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.17 c0.44 c0.03 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.19 0.55 0.01 0.54 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 71.2 1.3 5.5 3.1 71.1 69.9 Progression Factor 0.86 2.18 2.53 2.76 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.2 Delay (s) 62.6 2.9 14.6 8.5 72.6 70.1 Level of Service E A B A E E Approach Delay (s) 7.0 14.5 71.1 Approach 'LOS A B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations )) tO 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 64 333 26 445 759 396 91 142 328 608 594 435 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 4974 1719 3438 1538 1736 1827 2733 3335 3438 1511' Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 66 343 27 459 782 408 94 146 338 627' 612 448 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 292 0 0 48 0 0 184 Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 364 0 459 782 116 94 146 290 627 612 264 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 57.7 3 E D D E Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 156.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 4 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 44.6 24.1 64.7 44.2 44.2 12.1 16.4 81.1 32.8 37.1 37.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 44.6 24.1 64.7 44.2 44.2 12.1 16.4 81.1 32.8' 37.1 37.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.15 0.41 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.11 0.52 0.21 0.24 0.24 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 972 768 713 974 436 135 192 1421 701' 818 359 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.27 c0.23 0.05 0.08 0.11 c0.19 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.47 0.64 0.80 0.27 0.70 0.76 0.20 0.89 0.75 0.74 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.80 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.92 1.01 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 2.1 1.2 3.7 0.1 11.9 14.7 0.0 11.8' 2.8 5.7' Delay (s) 40.7 62.3 36.0 45.2 29.5 82.0 82.6 20.1 59.4 53.5 61.0 Level of Service D E D D C F F C E D E Approach Delay (s) 59.0 38.7 46.0 57.7 Approach 'LOS E D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 224 457 588 1658 1114 2211 486 128 384 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3136 1382 3335 3438 2651 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 231 471 606 1709 1148 2279 501 132 396 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 224 0 0 162 0 0 55 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 698 109 1709 1148 2117 501 132 341 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 8 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Sum of lost time (s) 8 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 105.0% ICU Level of Service 3 G Analysis Period (min) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5 % 4 % 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 42.0 42.0 74.4 105.9 105.9 27.1 27.1 105.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 42.0 42.0 74.4 105.9 105.9 27.1 27.1 105.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.48 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.68 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 844 372 1591 2334 1800 585 317 1848' v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.51 0.33 c0.15 0.07 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.80 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.83 0.29 1.07 0.49 1.18 0.86 0.42 0.18 Progression Factor 1.02 1.10 2.33 0.87 0.74 0.63 0.55 1.18 1.87 Incremental Delay,' d2 56.7 7.8 1.7 34.8 0.1 79.9 8.2 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 131.0 66.9 107.1 70.2 9.1 95.8 42.4 68.2 17.5 Level of Service F E F E A F D E B' Approach Delay (s) 88.4 67.9 36.1 0.0 Approach 'LOS F E D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 67.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.0% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 759 0 49 35 237 2 2 5 153 2088' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1520 1736 1553 1664 1736 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 782 0 51 36 244 2 2 5 158 2153' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 125 Lane Group Flow (vph) 782 15 0 36 244 2 0 0 163 2028' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 1 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Perm custom Perm custom' Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted' Phases' 3 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 46.4 46.4 5.4 99.3 0.8 90.9 137.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 46.4 46.4 5.4 99.3 0.8 90.9 137.3'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.64 0.01 0.58 0.88 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1001 452 60 989 9 1056 2405' v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.02 0.16 c0.00 c0.74 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.03 0.60 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 38.9 74.2 12.2 77.3 14.9' 4.3' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 9.40 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.7 0.0 10.3 0.6 4.5 0.1 0.8' Delay (s) 53.9 38.9 84.5 12.8 81.8 13.6 41.7 Level of Service D D F B F B D Approach Delay (s) 53.0 22.0 81.8 39.7 Approach 'LOS D C F D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 75 541 225 477 3003 24 1718 53 158 16 62 262 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4832 1752 5030 3221 1621 1540 1844 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.81 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 558 232 492 3096 25 1771 55 163 16 64 270 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 790 0 492 3120 0 1222 604 95 0 80 270 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 6 F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type Prot ICU Level of Service Prot H Split Analysis Period (min) Perm Perm' custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 8 Permitted' Phases' 4' 8' 6'8' Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.7 45.0 45.0 45.0 15.8 40.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.7 45.0 45.0 45.0 15.8 40.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 57 774 258 2312 929 468 444' 153 414 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.16 c0.28 c0.62 c0.38 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06' 0.05 c0.17' v/c Ratio 1.35 1.02 1.91 1.35 1.32 1.29 0.21 0.52 0.65 Progression Factor 0.64 0.61 0.96 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 228.7 35.0 411.5 158.0 149.6 146.1 0.1 3.2 3.7' Delay (s) 277.1 74.8 475.5 197.5 205.1 201.6 42.2 69.7 54.9 Level of Service F E F F F F D' E fD Approach Delay (s) 92.7 235.4 190.7 58.3 Approach 'LOS F F F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 186.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.9% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 372 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3902 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 384 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 384 75 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.2 27.2 Effective Green, g (s) 27.2 27.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 680 276 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.56 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 59.0 55.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.6 0.2 Delay (s) 59.6 56.0 Level of Service E E Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ft r 0.97 tt 0.97 r Volume (vph) 752 107 85 2381 365 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1543 1752 3505 3433 1558 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 775 110 88 2455 376 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 0 36 Lane Group Flow (vph) 775 65 88 2455 376 24 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 92.3 92.3 29.8 119.7 21.4 21.4 Effective Green, g (s) 92.3 92.3 29.8 115.7 21.4 21.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.19 0.74 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2094 913 335 2600 471 214 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.05 c0.70 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.07 0.26 0.94 0.80 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 16.7 13.6 53.7 17.4 65.2 59.0 Progression Factor 0.82 0.83 1.46 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.9 8.6 0.1 Delay (s) 14.1 11.4 78.2 12.6 73.8 59.1 Level of Service B B E B E E Approach Delay (s) 13.8 14.9 71.8 Approach 'LOS B B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 5 518 275 354 1418 1 815 2 122 2 4 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1534 1752 3504 3433 1567 1643 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.99 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 534 284 365 1462 1 840 2 126 2 4 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 534 125 365 1463 0 840 44 0 0 18 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 38.5 HCM Level of Service 1 D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 0.81 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 55.7 55.7 35.8 90.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 55.7 55.7 35.8 90.5 52.5 52.5 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 11 1264 548 402 2033 913 527 551 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.15 c0.21 c0.42 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.31 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.42 0.23 0.91 0.72 0.92 0.08 0.03 Progression Factor 0.80 0.67 0.62 1.01 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 10.2 1.0 0.9 16.7 1.5 14.0 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 72.3 26.3 22.6 75.8 22.4 63.7 35.4 34.7 Level of Service E C C E C E D C Approach Delay (s) 25.3 33.1 60.0 34.7 Approach 'LOS C C E C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 192 153 76 826 570 233 45 527 170 243 361 146 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1631 1283 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001' 2896 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 198 158 78 852 588 240 46 543 175 251' 372 151' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 137 0 0 0 0 38 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 356 45 852 588 103 46 543 175 251' 485 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 45 HCM Average Control Delay 63.4 HCM Level of Service E 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.96 7 3 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 Sum of lost time (s) 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split Perm Split c Critical Lane Group Perm Prot pt+ov' Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.9 19.9 48.0 48.0 48.0 8.7 23.4 75.4 12.7 27.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 19.9 19.9 48.0 48.0 48.0 8.7 23.4 75.4' 12.7' 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.19 0.63 0.11 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 213 1224 664 557 113 609 878 318' 661 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.28 c0.35 0.03 c0.17 0.13 0.08 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.32 0.21 0.70 0.89 0.19 0.41 0.89 0.20 0.79 0.73 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 2.19 1.02 1.01 1.21 1.11 0.92 Incremental Delay,' d2 167.0 0.4 1.4 11.0 0.1 2.2 14.4 0.1 11.7' 6.8 Delay (s) 217.1 43.6 35.1 48.9 51.2 56.6 61.9 11.5 69.7 46.4 Level of Service F D D D D E E B E D Approach Delay (s) 185.9 42.2 50.0 54.0 Approach 'LOS F D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 63.4 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r + ft r Volume (vph) 0 0 93 250 387 108 112 316 0 0 407 61' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 3367 1767 3426 3438 1471' Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 3367 1767 3426 3438 1471' Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 96 258 399 111 115 326 0 0 420 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 96 258 495 0 0 441 0 0 420 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Over Split Split Perm' Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g (s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 1375 722 617 728 311' v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.08 c0.28 c0.13 c0 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.34 0.19 0.69 0.71 0.58 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 11.4 14.6 23.2 21.2 18..8' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.3 5.2 2.3 1.1 0.1' Delay (s) 22.4 11.7 19.8 27.0 22.4 18.9 Level of Service C B B C C B Approach Delay (s) 22.4 17.1 27.0 21.9 Approach 'LOS C B C C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r ))) + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 ft r Volume (vph) 179 181 245 1672 270 396 185 206 364 189 1185 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1579 3283 1553 4894 1827 1553 1736 3471 1522 1719 3438 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 185 187 253 1724 278 408 191 212 375 195' 1222 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0 0 187 0 0 335 0 0 51 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 252 123 1724 278 221 191 212 40 195' 1222 47 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 0.08 0.08 c0.08 c0.35 0.15 7 c0.11 0.06 3 0.11 c0.36 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 4 0.03 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split 50.7 Prot Split 31.5 Prot Prot 51.1 Perm Prot 40.5 Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.69 Permitted' Phases 6.2 3.1 8.1 34.6 0.1 0.1 135.7 1.4 6 1.6' 54.1 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 11.0 12.7 12.7 37.3 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.32 0.32 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 383 181 1631 609 518 159 367 161' 534 1117 490 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.08 c0.08 c0.35 0.15 0.14 c0.11 0.06 0.11 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.66 0.68 1.06 0.46 0.43 1.20 0.58 0.25 0.37 1.09 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 50.7 50.7 50.9 40.0 31.5 31.1 54.5 51.1 49.3' 32.1' 40.5 28..2' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.74 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.87 0.69 Incremental Delay,' d2 6.2 3.1 8.1 34.6 0.1 0.1 135.7 1.4 0.3 1.6' 54.1 0.3' Delay (s) 56.8 53.8 59.0 63.8 23.3 20.5 190.2 52.5 49.5 25.9 89.4 19.8 Level of Service E D E E C C F D D' C F B Approach Delay (s) 56.5 51.8 84.9 76.7 Approach 'LOS E D F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 64.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 + rr ) ttt r 0.97 0 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 92 101 541 103 750 3 502 275 135 7 433 1086 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 2787 1770 5085 1537 3433 3345 1770 1863 2717 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 104 558 106 773 3 518 284 139 7' 446 1120 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 257 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0 192 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 104 301 106 773 1 518 373 0 7 446 928 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D D 3 B E 8 D Approach 'Delay (s) 3 16.2 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 42.9 2 Approach LOS B 3 Turn Type Prot C pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 7 4 3' 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G' (s) 7.0 11.8 46.0 18.1 22.9 22.9 30.2 64.4 9.7' 43.9 43.9' Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 11.8 46.0 18.1 22.9 22.9 30.2 64.4 9.7 43.9 43.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.10 0,38 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.54 0.08' 0.37 0.37' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 200 183 1068 267 970 293 864 1795 143 682 994 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.06 0.11 c0.06 c0.15 c0.15 0.11 0.00 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 54.7 51.7 25.6 46.0 46.3 39.3 39.6 14.5 50.9 31.7 36.7 Progression Factor 0.92 0.69 0,24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.72 1.20' 1.06 1.05' Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 7.5 Delay (s) 50.9 37.5 6.3 46.4 50.6 39.3 33.0 10.7 61.1' 34.2 46.2' Level of Service D D A D D D C B E C D Approach 'Delay (s) 16.2 50.1 23.0 42.9 Approach LOS B D C D HCM Average Control Delay 35.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 76 105 45 468 327 15 117 722 324 507 70 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1543 1770 1844 1770 3539 1538 3399 273 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 108 46 482 337 15 121 744 334 523' 72 232 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 248 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 186 6 482 351 0 121 744 86 595' 0 81' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 6 Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G' (s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 52.0 12.0 31.0 31.0 25.9' 25.9' Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 52.0 12.0 31.0 31.0 25.9 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0,14 0.27 0.43 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.22' 0.22' Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 252 213 479 799 177 914 397 734 590 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 D E B c0.27 0.19 0.07 c0.21 47.6 c0.18 47.5' v/s Ratio Perm E 0.00 D D 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.03 1.01 0.44 0.68 0.81 0.22 0.81' 0.14' Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 44.7 43.8 23.8 52.2 41.8 35.0 44.7 38.0 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 0.0 38.9 1.4 7.7 7.2 1.1 6.4 0.0 Delay (s) 58.9 44.8 72.0 14.1 67.5 46.3 50.3 51.1' 38.1' Level of Service E D E B E D D D D Approach 'Delay (s) 56.1 47.6 49.5 47.5' Approach LOS E D D D HCM Average Control Delay 48.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 140 23 13 1!189 61 231 32 473 104 148 732 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1786 1556 1681 1693 1546 1770 3375 1359 3433 3426 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 24 13 1226 63 238 33 488 107 153' 755 170 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 82 0 2 73 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 168 1 638 651 156 33 497 23 153' 909 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C B 2 85.2 16 49.5 26 52.2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' Approach LOS F D D 3' B 4 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected 'Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1' 6 Permitted Phases 3 4 2 Actuated Green, G' (s) 12.7 12.7 48.9 48.9 48.9 3.6 22.3 22.3 20.1' 38.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 12.7 48.9 48.9 48.9 3.6 22.3 22.3 20.1 38.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0,11 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.17' 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 165 685 690 630 53 627 253 575 1108 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.38 c0.38 c0.02 0.15 0.04 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.10 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 48.0 33.9 34.2 23.4 57.5 46.6 40.4 43.5 37.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55' 0.30 Incremental Delay, d2 35.1 0.0 19.2 21.2 0.1 15.2 6.4 0.1 0.8 5.2 Delay (s) 88.1 48.0 53.2 55.4 23.5 72.8 53.0 40.5 24.8' 16.5 Level of Service F D D E C E D D C B Approach 'Delay (s) 85.2 49.5 52.2 17.7 Approach LOS F D D B HCM Average Control Delay 41.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 118 444 1984 155 55 333 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 4972 1752 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 4972 1752 1517 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 458 2045 160 57 343 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 0 317 Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 458 2201 0 57 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 102.8 87.9 9.2 9.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 102.8 87.9 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.86 0.73 0.08 0.08 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 4356 3642 134 116 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 c0.44 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.11 0.60 0.43 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 53.3 1.4 7.7 52.9 52.1 Progression Factor 0.83 0.22 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 11.1 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 Delay (s) 55.2 0.3 3.4 53.7 52.4 Level of Service E A A D D Approach Delay (s) 11.9 3.4 52.6 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) ttt r )) tt 0.97 t r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 194 599 158 713 1525 97 159 216 117 96 884 203 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1508 3400 4982 1770 1863 1529 3433 3427 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 200 618 163 735 1572 100 164 223 121 99 911 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 6 0 0 0 77 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 618 35 735 1666 0 164 223 44 99' 1104 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 0.03 c0.32 18 3 13 0.03 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' v/c Ratio 0.97 8 0.11 0.91 1 0.93 0.33 4' 0.51 1.02 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot 0.55 Perm Prot 3.72 1.00 Prot Incremental Delay,' d2 Perm Prot 0.7 3.9 Protected Phases 5 2 0.0 1 6 Delay (s) 3 8 69.1 7 4 114.5 Permitted' Phases 94.1 55.7 2 Level of Service F D E C 8' F D F' Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 25.5 25.5 28.5 40.0 12.0 43.2 43.2 6.8 38.0 71.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.33 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.32 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1081 320 808 1661 177 671 550 195' 1085 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.12 0.22 c0.33 c0.09 0.12 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.57 0.11 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.33 0.08 0.51 1.02 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 42.4 38.1 44.5 40.0 53.6 27.9 25.3' 55.0' 41.0 Progression Factor 1.02 1.03 1.80 0.56 0.55 1.29 1.47 3.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 51.3 2.1 0.7 3.9 11.3 45.7 0.1 0.0 0.8' 31.7 Delay (s) 105.2 45.9 69.1 28.8 33.4 114.5 41.1 94.1 55.7 72.7 Level of Service F D E C C F D F' E E Approach Delay (s) 61.9 32.0 77.4 71.3 Approach 'LOS E C E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r )) tt 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 232 403 1 17 254 1538 321 270 240 52 175 610 527 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 *0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1536 3400 4894 1752 3505 1532 1752 1789 2699 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 291 415 121 262 1586 331 278 247 54 180 629 543 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 0 27 0 0 0 44 0 0 247 Lane Group Flow (vph) 291 415 56 262 1890 0 278 247 10 180 629 296 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.39 c0.16 5 0.10 1 v/s Ratio Perm 5 0.04 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 15 0.11' v/c Ratio 1.00 3 0.12 0.66 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 35.1' Perm Prot Progression Factor 0.56 Split 1.87 Perm Split 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 1.00 5 2 1.0 8 8 89.7 4 4 0.0 Permitted' Phases 140.3 0.1' 6 78.7 30.8 58.7 44.6 125.0 8' 43.4 40.5 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 35.2 35.2 14.0 39.0 D 21.8 21.8 21.8 33.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.28 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1038 451 397 1591 318 637 278' 482' 492 742 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.12 0.08 c0.39 c0.16 0.07 0.10 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.11' v/c Ratio 1.00 0.40 0.12 0.66 1.19 0.87 0.39 0.04 0.37 1.28 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 54.9 33.9 31.1 50.7 40.5 47.8 43.2 40.4' 35.1' 43.5 35..4' Progression Factor 0.56 0.88 1.87 0.83 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 48.0 1.0 0.5 2.3 89.7 21.8 0.1 0.0 0.2' 140.3 0.1' Delay (s) 78.7 30.8 58.7 44.6 125.0 69.5 43.4 40.5 35.3 183.8 35.5 Level of Service E C E D F E D D' D F DD Approach Delay (s) 51.7 115.4 55.7 104.5 Approach 'LOS D F E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 94.7 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.3% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 r 0.97 Volume (vph) 1 395 108 596 1356 15 166 27 56 12 46 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4884 1752 3499 1674 1469 1818 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.93 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 407 111 614 1398 15 171 28 58 12 47 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 1 0 0 1 42 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 482 0 614 1412 0 0 204 10 0 60 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 34.4 50.4 84.0 22.7 22.7 22.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 34.4 50.4 84.0 22.7 22.7' 22.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.29 0.42 0.70 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1!2 1400 736 2449 240 278 323 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.10 c0.35 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.83 0.58 0.85 0.04 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 59.2 33.9 31.1 9.1 47.0 39.7' 40.9 Progression Factor 0.65 0.68 0.74 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 0.7 5.4 0.7 23.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 39.6 23.8 28.4 3.4 70.2 39.7 41.0 Level of Service D C C A E D D Approach Delay (s) 23.9 11.0 64.0 41.0 Approach 'LOS C B E D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt Volume (vph) 31 382 1718 30 27 249 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3496 1612 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Setd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3496 1612 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 394 1771 31 28 257 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 129 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 394 1801 0 156 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 96.2 84.1 15.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 96.2 84.1 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.80 0.70 0.13 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119 2837 2450 212 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 c0.52 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.71 0.14 0.74 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 54.8 2.7 11.1 50.1 Progression Factor 1.21 0.39 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 16.8 0.1 2.0 12.4 Delay (s) 83.2 1.1 13.1 62.4 Level of Service F A B E Approach Delay (s) 15.6 13.1 62.4 Approach 'LOS B B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 73: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 285 487 2 1 777 92 5 0 1 33 2 423 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.87 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3483 1748 1533 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 294 502 2 1 801 95 5 0 1 34 2 436' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 168 196 Lane Group Flow (vph) 294 504 0 1 883 0 0 5 0 0' 69 39 Turn Type Prot 0.1 0.8 Prot 0.0 0.7 Perm Delay (s) Perm 5.1 Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 19..3' 3 8 A C 2 B 6 B Permitted Phases 12.2 15.2 18.6 19.6 2 Approach LOS 6 B 6 Actuated Green, G' (s) 12.3 31.5 0.7 19.9 8.7 8.7 8.7 Effective Green, g (s) 12.3 31.5 0.7 19.9 8.7 8.7 8.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.60 0.01 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 2106 23 1310 227 242 247 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.14 0.00 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.05 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.24 0.04 0.67 0.02 0.29 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 18.7 5.0 25.8 13.8 18.5 19.4 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.3 Delay (s) 24.5 5.1 26.6 15.2 18.6 20.0 19..3' Level of Service C A C B B C B Approach 'Delay (s) 12.2 15.2 18.6 19.6 Approach LOS B B B B HCM Average Control Delay 15.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 92: Forbes Blvd. & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 244 tt 0 468 418 r Volume (vph) 181 167 383 608 150 583 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.9 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.2 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 14.4 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3214 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 430 3539 3214 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 187 172 395 627 155 601 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 272 0 0 327 Lane Group Flow (vph) 187 172 750 0 155 274 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.8 26.8 26.8 12.5 12.5 Effective Green, g (s) 26.8 26.8 26.8 12.5 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.57 0.57 0,57 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 2005 1821 468 418 v/s Ratio Prot 72.9% ICU Level of Service C 0.05 0.23 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 c0.17 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.09 0.41 0.33 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 4.7 5.8 14.0 15.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 3.7 Delay (s) 21.2 4.7 5.9 14.4 19.2 Level of Service C A A B B Approach 'Delay (s) 13.3 5.9 18.2 Approach LOS B A B HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 22 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 130 563 457 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 13 191 31 137 818 34 79 15 175 8 19 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 197 32 141 843 35 81 15 180 8 20 28 Volume Total (vph) 112 130 563 457 277 56 Volume Left (vph) 13 0 141 0 81 8 Volume Right (vph) 0 32 0 35 180 28 Hadj (s) 0.14 -0.09 0,21 0.03 - ,0.25 - -0.19 Departure Headway (s) 7.2 7.0 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.9 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.22 0.25 0,98 0.77 0.48 0.11 Capacity (veh /h) 483 503 563 583 572 485 Control Delay (s) 11.0 11.1 55.8 25.3 14.7 10.7 Approach Delay (s) 11.1 42.1 14.7 10.7 Approach 'LOS B E B B HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations r tt tt Volume (vph) 612 143 655 0 13 820 887 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1553 3460 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1553 3460 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 631 147 675 0 13 845 914 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 54 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 631 93 687 0 0 845 914 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.9 32.9 35.1 77.5 115.6 Effective Green, g (s) 32.9 32.9 35.1 77.5 115.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.50 0.74 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 710 328 779 854 2548 v/s Ratio Prot Co. 19 c0.20 c0.49 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.89 0.28 0.88 0.99 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 59.8 51.7 58.5 38.8 7.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 13.0 0.5 13.6 27.9 0.4 Delay (s) 72.8 52.1 53.0 66.7 7.5 Level of Service E D D E A Approach Delay (s) 68.9 53.0 36.0 0.0 Approach 'LOS E D D A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations tt tt r r Volume (vph) 42 559 1479 20 109 158 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 3438 1504 3367 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 3438 1504 3367 1553 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 576 1525 21 112 163 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 4 0 153 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 576 1525 17 112 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8 137.9 125.1 125.1 9.6 8.8 Effective Green, g (s) 8.8 137.9 125.1 125.1 9.6 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.06 0.06 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 98 3068 2757 1206 207 88 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.17 c0.44 c0.03 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.19 0.55 0.01 0.54 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 71.2 1.3 5.5 3.1 71.1 69.9 Progression Factor 0.86 2.18 2.54 2.76 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.2 Delay (s) 62.4 2.9 14.6 8.5 72.6 70.1 Level of Service E A B A E E Approach Delay (s) 7.0 14.5 71.1 Approach 'LOS A B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations )) tO 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 64 332 26 444 752 395 91 142 328 607 594 435 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 4974 1719 3438 1538 1736 1827 2733 3335 3438 1511' Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 66 342 27 458 775 407 94 146 338 626 612 448 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 293 0 0 48 0 0 184 Lane Group Flow (vph) 66 363 0 458 775 114 94 146 290 626 612 264 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.23 0.05 3 0.11 c0.19 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.07 4 0.64 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot 59.9' 55.1 Prot Progression Factor Perm Prot pt+ov' Prot 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 1.01 7 4 2.1 1 6 67 5 2 0.0 Permitted' Phases 2.8 5.6' Delay (s) 40.4 62.2 4 36.1 45.4 29.5 82.0 82.6 20.1 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 24.1 D 64.7 43.8 43.8 12.1 16.4 81.1 32.8 37.1 37.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.15 0.41 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.11 0.52 0.21 0.24 0.24 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 981 768 713 965 432 135 192 1421 701' 818 359 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.27 c0.23 0.05 0.08 0.11 c0.19 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.47 0.64 0.80 0.26 0.70 0.76 0.20 0.89 0.75 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 60.2 36.4 52.1 43.6 70.2 67.9 20.1 59.9' 55.1 54..9' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.80 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.92 1.01 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 2.1 1.2 3.8 0.1 11.9 14.7 0.0 11.7' 2.8 5.6' Delay (s) 40.4 62.2 36.1 45.4 29.5 82.0 82.6 20.1 59.3 53.5 61.0 Level of Service D E D D C F F C E D E Approach Delay (s) 58.9 38.8 46.0 57.6 Approach 'LOS E D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 224 455 588 1658 1105 2180 486 128 384 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3135 1382 3335 3438 2651 3367 1827 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 231 469 606 1709 1139 2247 501 132 396 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 47 224 0 0 162 0 0 55 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 695 109 1709 1139 2085 501 132 341 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 8 Actuated Cycle Length (s) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Sum of lost time (s) 8 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 104.5% ICU Level of Service 3 G Analysis Period (min) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5 % 4 % 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 42.0 42.0 74.4 105.9 105.9 27.1 27.1 105.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 42.0 42.0 74.4 105.9 105.9 27.1 27.1 105.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.48 0.68 0.68 0.17 0.17 0.68 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 844 372 1591 2334 1800 585 317 1848' v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.51 0.33 c0.15 0.07 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.79 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.82 0.29 1.07 0.49 1.16 0.86 0.42 0.18 Progression Factor 1.02 1.10 2.33 0.88 0.75 0.63 0.55 1.18 1.88 Incremental Delay,' d2 56.7 7.6 1.7 34.8 0.1 71.9 8.2 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 130.8 66.7 107.0 70.5 9.1 87.8 42.4 68.2 17.5 Level of Service F E F E A F D E B' Approach Delay (s) 88.3 64.4 36.1 0.0 Approach 'LOS F E D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 64.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 104.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 759 0 49 35 237 2 2 5 153 2088' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1520 1736 1553 1664 1736 2733 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 782 0 51 36 244 2 2 5 158 2153' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 36 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 125 Lane Group Flow (vph) 782 15 0 36 244 2 0 0 163 2028' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 1 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Perm custom Perm custom' Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted' Phases' 3 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 46.4 46.4 5.4 99.3 0.8 90.9 137.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 46.4 46.4 5.4 99.3 0.8 90.9 137.3'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.64 0.01 0.58 0.88 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1001 452 60 989 9 1056 2405' v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 c0.02 0.16 c0.00 c0.74 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.03 0.60 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 38.9 74.2 12.2 77.3 14.9' 4.3' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 9.42 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.7 0.0 10.3 0.6 4.5 0.1 0.8' Delay (s) 53.9 38.9 84.5 12.8 81.8 13.6 41.8 Level of Service D D F B F B D Approach Delay (s) 53.0 22.0 81.8 39.8 Approach 'LOS D C F D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 75 539 225 477 2963 24 1718 53 158 16 62 262 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4832 1752 5030 3221 1621 1540 1844 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.81 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 556 232 492 3055 25 1771 55 163 16 64 270 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 788 0 492 3079 0 1222 604 95 0 80 270 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 6 F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type Prot ICU Level of Service Prot H Split Analysis Period (min) Perm Perm' custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 8 Permitted' Phases' 4' 8' 6'8' Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.7 45.0 45.0 45.0 15.8 40.8 Effective Green, g (s) 5.0 25.0 23.0 71.7 45.0 45.0 45.0 15.8 40.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.10 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 57 774 258 2312 929 468 444' 153 414 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.16 c0.28 c0.61 c0.38 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06' 0.05 c0.17' v/c Ratio 1.35 1.02 1.91 1.33 1.32 1.29 0.21 0.52 0.65 Progression Factor 0.64 0.61 0.96 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 228.8 34.4 411.4 150.1 149.6 146.1 0.1 3.2 3.7' Delay (s) 277.1 74.1 475.5 189.5 205.1 201.6 42.2 69.7 54.9 Level of Service F E F F F F D' E fD Approach Delay (s) 92.2 228.9 190.7 58.3 Approach 'LOS F F F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 183.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 23.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 117.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. (Base Option) 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 367 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3902 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 378 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 378 75 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.2 27.2 Effective Green, g (s) 27.2 27.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 680 276 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.56 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 58.9 55.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.6 0.2 Delay (s) 59.4 56.0 Level of Service E E Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ft r 0.97 tt 0.97 r Volume (vph) 750 102 85 2368 338 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1543 1752 3505 3433 1558 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 773 105 88 2441 348 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 0 39 Lane Group Flow (vph) 773 62 88 2441 348 21 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Turn Type Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases 6 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 92.3 92.3 30.5 120.4 20.7 20.7 Effective Green, g (s) 92.3 92.3 30.5 116.4 20.7 20.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59 0.20 0.75 0.13 0.13 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2094 913 343 2615 456 207 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.05 c0.70 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.07 0.26 0.93 0.76 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 13.6 53.1 16.6 65.3 59.5 Progression Factor 0.82 0.80 1.46 0.67 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.8 6.7 0.1 Delay (s) 14.0 11.0 77.5 11.9 72.0 59.6 Level of Service B B E B E E Approach Delay (s) 13.7 14.2 70.2 Approach 'LOS B B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 5 518 273 354 1418 1 802 2 122 2 4 36 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1535 1752 3504 3433 1567 1643 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.99 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 534 281 365 1462 1 827 2 126 2 4 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 534 125 365 1463 0 827 44 0 0 18 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 38.1 HCM Level of Service 1 D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 0.81 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 56.5 56.5 35.8 91.3 51.7 51.7 51.7 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 56.5 56.5 35.8 91.3 51.7 51.7 51.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.59 0.33 0.33 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 11 1282 556 402 2051 899 519 542 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.15 c0.21 c0.42 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.30 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.42 0.22 0.91 0.71 0.92 0.08 0.03 Progression Factor 0.80 0.67 0.60 1.01 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 10.2 1.0 0.9 16.7 1.4 13.9 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 72.0 25.8 21.8 75.6 21.8 64.1 35.9 35.3 Level of Service E C C E C E D D Approach Delay (s) 24.7 32.6 60.3 35.3 Approach 'LOS C C E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 156.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 192 152 76 825 567 231 45 527 170 242 361 146 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1631 1283 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001' 2896 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 198 157 78 851 585 238 46 543 175 249' 372 151' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 38 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 355 45 851 585 102 46 543 175 249' 485 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 45 HCM Average Control Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service E 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.96 7 3 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 Sum of lost time (s) 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split Perm Split c Critical Lane Group Perm Prot pt+ov' Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.9 19.9 48.0 48.0 48.0 8.7 23.5 75.5 12.6 27.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 19.9 19.9 48.0 48.0 48.0 8.7 23.5 75.5 12.6 27.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.20 0.63 0.10 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 213 1224 664 557 113 612 880 315' 661 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.28 c0.35 0.03 c0.17 0.13 0.08 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 1.31 0.21 0.70 0.88 0.18 0.41 0.89 0.20 0.79 0.73 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.12 2.20 1.02 1.01 1.20 1.11 0.92 Incremental Delay,' d2 165.5 0.4 1.4 10.7 0.1 2.2 13.7 0.1 12.1' 6.8 Delay (s) 215.6 43.6 34.6 48.1 51.5 56.5 61.1 11.4 70.1 46.4 Level of Service F D C D D E E B E D Approach Delay (s) 184.6 41.7 49.4 54.1 Approach 'LOS F D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 62.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r + ft r Volume (vph) 0 0 93 249 387 108 111 315 0 0 407 61' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 3367 1767 3427 3438 1471' Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 3367 1767 3427 3438 1471' Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 96 257 399 111 114 325 0 0 420 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 96 257 495 0 0 439 0 0 420 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Over Split Split Perm' Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g (s) 10.8 24.5 24.5 10.8 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 284 1375 722 617 728 311' v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.08 c0.28 c0.13 c0 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.34 0.19 0.69 0.71 0.58 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 11.4 14.6 23.1 21.2 18..8' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.3 5.2 2.2 1.1 0.1' Delay (s) 22.4 11.7 19.8 26.9 22.4 18.9 Level of Service C B B C C B Approach Delay (s) 22.4 17.1 26.9 21.9 Approach 'LOS C B C C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r ))) + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 ft r Volume (vph) 179 181 245 1625 269 396 185 206 364 189 1185 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1579 3283 1553 4894 1827 1553 1736 3471 1522 1719 3438 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 185 187 253 1675 277 408 191 212 375 195' 1222 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 0 0 187 0 0 335 0 0 51 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 252 123 1675 277 221 191 212 40 195' 1222 47 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 0.08 0.08 c0.08 c0.34 0.15 7 c0.11 0.06 3 0.11 c0.36 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 4 0.03 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split 50.7 Prot Split 31.4 Prot Prot 51.1 Perm Prot 40.5 Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.69 Permitted' Phases 6.2 3.1 8.1 24.7 0.1 0.1 135.7 1.4 6 1.6' 54.1 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 14.0 14.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 11.0 12.7 12.7 37.3 39.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.32 0.32 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 184 383 181 1631 609 518 159 367 161' 534 1117 490 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.08 c0.08 c0.34 0.15 0.14 c0.11 0.06 0.11 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.66 0.68 1.03 0.45 0.43 1.20 0.58 0.25 0.37 1.09 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 50.7 50.7 50.9 40.0 31.4 31.1 54.5 51.1 49.3' 32.1' 40.5 28..2' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.87 0.69 Incremental Delay,' d2 6.2 3.1 8.1 24.7 0.1 0.1 135.7 1.4 0.3 1.6' 54.1 0.3' Delay (s) 56.8 53.8 59.0 54.0 23.1 21.3 190.2 52.5 49.5 25.9 89.4 19.8 Level of Service E D E D C C F D D' C F B Approach Delay (s) 56.5 44.7 84.9 76.7 Approach 'LOS E D F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 61.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 + rr ) ttt r 0.97 0 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 92 101 541 103 714 3 502 275 134 7 433 1086 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1863 2787 1770 5085 1537 3433 3346 1770 1863 2717 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 104 558 106 736 3 518 284 138 7' 446 1120 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 255 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0 192 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 104 303 106 736 1 518 372 0 7 446 928 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D D 3 B E 8 D Approach 'Delay (s) 3 16.0 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 42.8 2 Approach LOS B 3 Turn Type Prot C pt+ov Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 27 1 6 7 4 3' 8 Permitted Phases 6 8 Actuated Green, G' (s) 7.3 11.8 46.3 17.6 22.1 22.1 30.5 64.9 9.7' 44.1 44.1' Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 11.8 46.3 17.6 22.1 22.1 30.5 64.9 9.7 44.1 44.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.10 0,39 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.54 0.08' 0.37 0.37' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 209 183 1075 260 936 283 873 1810 143 685 998 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.06 0.11 c0.06 c0.14 c0.15 0.11 0.00 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 54.4 51.7 25.4 46.5 46.7 39.9 39.3 14.2 50.9 31.6 36.5 Progression Factor 0.92 0.69 0,24 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.73 1.22' 1.06 1.07' Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.1 0.0 0.4 4.1 0.0 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 7.2 Delay (s) 50.3 37.5 6.1 46.8 50.8 40.0 32.7 10.6 62.1' 34.3 46.1' Level of Service D D A D D D C B E C D Approach 'Delay (s) 16.0 50.2 22.8 42.8 Approach LOS B D C D HCM Average Control Delay 34.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 76 105 45 468 327 15 117 722 324 506 70 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1824 1543 1770 1844 1770 3539 1538 3399 273 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 108 46 482 337 15 121 744 334 522' 72 232 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 248 0 0 152 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 186 6 482 351 0 121 744 86 594 0 80 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 17 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 6 Turn Type Split Perm Prot Prot Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 3 2 4 Actuated Green, G' (s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 52.0 12.0 31.0 31.0 25.9' 25.9' Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 32.5 52.0 12.0 31.0 31.0 25.9 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0,14 0.27 0.43 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.22' 0.22' Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 252 213 479 799 177 914 397 734 590 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 D E B c0.27 0.19 0.07 c0.21 47.5 c0.17 47.3' v/s Ratio Perm E 0.00 D D 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.03 1.01 0.44 0.68 0.81 0.22 0.81' 0.14' Uniform Delay, d1 49.6 44.7 43.8 23.8 52.2 41.8 35.0 44.7 38.0 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 0.0 38.9 1.4 7.7 7.2 1.1 6.2 0.0 Delay (s) 58.9 44.8 72.0 14.1 67.4 45.9 50.2 50.9' 38.0' Level of Service E D E B E D D D D Approach 'Delay (s) 56.1 47.5 49.3 47.3' Approach LOS E D D D HCM Average Control Delay 48.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 140 23 13 1!179 61 231 32 473 103 148 732 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1786 1556 1681 1693 1546 1770 3375 1359 3433 3426 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 24 13 1215 63 238 33 488 106 153' 755 170 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 83 0 2 72 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 168 1 632 646 155 33 497 23 153' 909 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C B 2 85.2 16 48.5 26 52.2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' Approach LOS F D D 3' B 4 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected 'Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1' 6 Permitted Phases 3 4 2 Actuated Green, G' (s) 12.7 12.7 48.8 48.8 48.8 3.6 22.3 22.3 20.2' 38.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 12.7 48.8 48.8 48.8 3.6 22.3 22.3 20.2 38.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0,11 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.17' 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 189 165 684 688 629 53 627 253 578 1111 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.38 c0.38 c0.02 0.15 0.04 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.10 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 48.0 33.8 34.2 23.5 57.5 46.6 40.4 43.4 37.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.55' 0.30 Incremental Delay, d2 35.1 0.0 18.0 20.2 0.1 15.2 6.4 0.1 0.8 5.1 Delay (s) 88.1 48.0 51.8 54.4 23.5 72.8 53.0 40.5 24.7' 16.4 Level of Service F D D D C E D D C B Approach 'Delay (s) 85.2 48.5 52.2 17.6 Approach LOS F D D B HCM Average Control Delay 41.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 118 442 1968 155 55 333 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 4972 1752 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 4972 1752 1517 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 456 2029 160 57 343 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 4 0 0 317 Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 456 2185 0 57 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 102.8 87.9 9.2 9.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 102.8 87.9 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.86 0.73 0.08 0.08 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 4356 3642 134 116 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 c0.44 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.10 0.60 0.43 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 53.3 1.4 7.7 52.9 52.1 Progression Factor 0.83 0.23 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 11.2 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.4 Delay (s) 55.2 0.3 3.3 53.7 52.4 Level of Service E A A D D Approach Delay (s) 11.9 3.3 52.6 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt rr Volume (vph) 452 45 48 1823 300 479 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4969 1752 5036 1752 2690 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4969 1752 5036 1752 2690 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 466 46 49 1879 309 494 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 0 0 0 385 Lane Group Flow (vph) 505 0 49 1879 309 109 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 74.7 6.9 85.6 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 74.7 6.9 85.6 26.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.62 0.06 0.71 0.22 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3093 101 3692 385 592 v/s Ratio Prot 0 0.03 c0.37 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.49 0.52 0.80 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 9.5 54.8 7.9 44.3 38.0 Progression Factor 1.51 1.32 0.17 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 0.3 0.1 10.8 0.1 Delay (s) 14.5 72.7 1.5 55.2 38.1 Level of Service B E A E D Approach Delay (s) 14.5 3.3 44.7 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) ttt r )) tt 0.97 t r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 194 579 158 701 1509 97 159 216 117 96 884 203 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1508 3400 4982 1770 1863 1529 3433 3427 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 200 597 163 723 1556 100 164 223 121 99 911 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 128 0 6 0 0 0 77 0 16 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 597 35 723 1650 0 164 223 44 99' 1104 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 0.03 c0.32 18 3 13 0.03 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' v/c Ratio 0.97 8 0.11 0.90 1 0.93 0.33 4' 0.51 1.02 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot 0.56 Perm Prot 3.69 1.00 Prot Incremental Delay,' d2 Perm Prot 0.7 3.8 Protected Phases 5 2 0.0 1 6 Delay (s) 3 8 69.5 7 4 114.6 Permitted' Phases 93.5 55.7 2 Level of Service F D E C 8' F D F' Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 25.7 25.7 28.3 40.0 12.0 43.2 43.2 6.8 38.0 71.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.33 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.32 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1089 323 802 1661 177 671 550 195' 1085 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.12 0.21 c0.33 c0.09 0.12 0.03 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.55 0.11 0.90 0.99 0.93 0.33 0.08 0.51 1.02 Uniform Delay, d1 52.8 42.0 37.9 44.5 39.9 53.6 27.9 25.3' 55.0' 41.0 Progression Factor 1.02 1.03 1.82 0.56 0.56 1.29 1.47 3.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 51.3 1.9 0.7 3.8 9.5 45.7 0.1 0.0 0.8' 31.7 Delay (s) 105.2 45.4 69.5 28.6 31.6 114.6 41.2 93.5 55.7 72.7 Level of Service F D E C C F D F' E E Approach Delay (s) 61.9 30.7 77.4 71.3 Approach 'LOS E C E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 51.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r )) tt 0.97 tt r 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 274 401 1 17 239 1528 321 270 240 51 175 588 509 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 *0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1537 3400 4893 1752 3505 1532 1752 1789 2699 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 282 413 121 246 1575 331 278 247 53 180 606 525 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 0 27 0 0 0 43 0 0 247 Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 413 56 246 1879 0 278 247 10 180 606 278 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.38 c0.16 5 0.10 1 v/s Ratio Perm 5 0.04 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 15 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.97 3 0.12 0.67 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 35.1' Perm Prot Progression Factor 0.55 Split 1.87 Perm Split 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.9 8 8 87.0 4 4 0.0 Permitted' Phases 121.0 0.1' 6 70.3 29.9 57.4 45.4 122.0 8' 43.4 40.5 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 36.2 36.2 13.0 39.0 D 21.8 21.8 21.8 33.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.28 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1068 464 368 1590 318 637 278' 482' 492 742 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.12 0.07 c0.38 c0.16 0.07 0.10 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.39 0.12 0.67 1.18 0.87 0.39 0.03 0.37 1.23 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 54.7 33.1 30.4 51.4 40.5 47.8 43.2 40.4' 35.1' 43.5 35..2' Progression Factor 0.55 0.87 1.87 0.83 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 40.1 0.9 0.5 2.7 87.0 21.8 0.1 0.0 0.2' 121.0 0.1' Delay (s) 70.3 29.9 57.4 45.4 122.0 69.5 43.4 40.5 35.3 164.5 35.3 Level of Service E C E D F E D D' D F DD Approach Delay (s) 47.9 113.2 55.7 95.0 Approach 'LOS D F E F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.8% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 r 0.97 Volume (vph) 1 392 108 585 1331 15 166 27 55 12 46 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4883 1752 3499 1674 1469 1818 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.93 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 404 111 603 1372 15 171 28 57 12 47 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 1 0 0 1 41 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 478 0 603 1386 0 0 204 10 0 60 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 34.9 49.9 84.0 22.7 22.7 22.7 Effective Green, g (s) 0.8 34.9 49.9 84.0 22.7 22.7' 22.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.29 0.42 0.70 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1!2 1420 729 2449 240 278 323 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.10 c0.34 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.34 0.83 0.57 0.85 0.03 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 59.2 33.5 31.2 8.9 47.0 39.7' 40.9 Progression Factor 0.60 0.68 0.77 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 0.6 5.3 0.7 23.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 36.8 23.4 29.2 3.3 70.2 39.7 41.0 Level of Service D C C A E D D Approach Delay (s) 23.4 11.2 64.1 41.0 Approach 'LOS C B E D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt Volume (vph) 77 382 1718 29 25 213 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3496 1613 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 Setd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3496 1613 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 394 1771 30 26 220 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 132 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 394 1800 0 114 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9 98.5 86.6 13.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.9 98.5 86.6 13.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.82 0.72 0.11 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 117 2905 2523 181 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.11 c0.51 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.68 0.14 0.71 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 54.8 2.2 9.6 50.9 Progression Factor 1.20 0.40 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 13.9 0.1 1.8 6.7 Delay (s) 79.8 1.0 11.3 57.5 Level of Service E A B E Approach Delay (s) 14.1 11.3 57.5 Approach 'LOS B B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 73: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 285 479 2 1 737 65 5 0 1 28 2 423 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.87 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3496 1748 1530 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 294 494 2 1 760 67 5 0 1 29 2 436' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 172 194 Lane Group Flow (vph) 294 496 0 1 818 0 0 5 0 0 64 37 Turn Type Prot 0.1 0.7 Prot 0.0 0.6 Perm Delay (s) Perm 5.0 Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 19..1' 3 8 A C 2 B 6 B Permitted Phases 12.0 14.2 18.5 19.5 2 Approach LOS 6 B 6 Actuated Green, G' (s) 12.2 31.0 0.7 19.5 8.3 8.3 8.3' Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 31.0 0.7 19.5 8.3 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.60 0.01 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 415 2109 24 1311 218 236 240 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.14 0.00 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.23 0.04 0.62 0.02 0.27 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 4.9 25.3 13.3 18.4 19.2 18.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.3 Delay (s) 23.7 5.0 26.0 14.2 18.5 19.8 19..1' Level of Service C A C B B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 12.0 14.2 18.5 19.5 Approach LOS B B B B HCM Average Control Delay 14.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 52.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 92: Forbes Blvd. & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 228 tt 0 493 441 r Volume (vph) 168 167 383 608 150 581 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 7.9 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.2 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 13.1 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3214 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 421 3539 3214 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 173 172 395 627 155 599 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 287 0 0 320 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 172 735 0 155 279 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 24.1 24.1 12.4 12.4 Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 24.1 24.1 12.4 12.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0,54 0.28 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1917 1741 493 441 v/s Ratio Prot 72.8% ICU Level of Service C 0.05 0.23 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 c0.18 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.09 0.42 0.31 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 7.9 4.9 6.1 12.7 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 2.9 Delay (s) 21.4 4.9 6.2 13.1 17.0 Level of Service C A A B B Approach 'Delay (s) 13.2 6.2 16.2 Approach LOS B A B HCM Average Control Delay 10.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 44.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 23 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 127 561 456 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 13 185 31 136 817 34 79 15 168 8 19 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 191 32 140 842 35 81 15 173 8 20 28 Volume Total (vph) 109 127 561 456 270 56 Volume Left (vph) 13 0 140 0 81 8 Volume Right (vph) 0 32 0 35 173 28 Hadj (s) 0.15 -0.09 0,21 0.03 - ,0.24 - -0.19 Departure Headway (s) 7.2 6.9 6.2 6.0 6.2 6.9 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.22 0.24 0,97 0.76 0.46 0.11 Capacity (veh /h) 485 505 566 587 573 490 Control Delay (s) 10.9 10.9 53.4 24.7 14.3 10.7 Approach Delay (s) 10.9 40.5 14.3 10.7 Approach 'LOS B E B B HCM Level of Service D Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 315 3 295 0 31 619 612 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3309 3317 1703 3406 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3309 3317 1703 3406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 325 3 304 0 32 638 631 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 0 322 0 0 638 631 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 12.2 24.1 39.3 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 12.2 24.1 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.22 0.44 0.71 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 493 736 746 2434 v/s Ratio Prot Co. 10 c0.10 c0.37 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.66 0.44 0.86 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 22.1 18.4 13.9 2.8 Progression Factor 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.4 1.9 9.5 0.3 Delay (s) 25.5 14.6 23.3 3.0 Level of Service C B C A Approach Delay (s) 25.5 14.6 13.2 0.0 Approach 'LOS C B B A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations 0.97 tt tt r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 217 295 809 118 31 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 3406 1489 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 224 304 834 122 32 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 39 0 38 Lane Group Flow (vph) 224 304 834 83 32 8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 7% 7% 6% 6% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.2 97.9 74.7 74.7 3.6 19.2 Effective Green, g,(s) 19.2 97.9 74.7 74.7 3.6 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.89 0.68 0.68 0.03 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 3003 2313 1011 112 276 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.09 c0.24 c0.01 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.10 0.36 0.08 0.29 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 43.2 0.7 7.5 6.0 51.9 37.7 Progression Factor 0.83 0.57 1.24 2.14 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 9.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 45.2 0.5 9.7 13.0 52.5 37.7 Level of Service D A A B D D Approach Delay (s) 19.5 10.2 43.7 Approach 'LOS B B D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5' Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 102 1052 49 193 219 184 45 226 482 392 286 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 4857 3367 3233 1687 1776 2656 3303 3406 1498 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 1085 51 199 226 190 46 233 497 404 295 181' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 168 0 0 0 37 0 0 130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 1132 0 199 248 0 46 233 460 404 295 51' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25.3 3 C D D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4 % 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 110.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 42.5 44.9 10.2 12.6 5.8 19.0 29.2 17.9 31.1 31.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 42.5 44.9 10.2 12.6 5.8 19.0 29.2 17.9' 31.1 31.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.41 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.17 0.27 0.16 0.28 0.28 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 658 1983 312 370 89 307 705 537' 963 424 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.23 0.06 c0.08 0.03 c0.13 0.17 c0.12 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.57 0.64 0.67 0.52 0.76 0.65 0.75 0.31 0.12 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.62 0.38 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 1.2 3.1 3.5 2.1 9.2 1.7 5.0' 0.1 0.0' Delay (s) 22.6 26.3 38.2 40.9 52.8 52.5 37.5 36.0 19.3 11.0 Level of Service C C D D D D D' D B B Approach Delay (s) 26.0 40.0 42.9 25.3 Approach 'LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 523 898 505 207 237 354 359 50 1143 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3303 3215 1351 3367 3471 2675 3433 1863 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 539 926 521 213 244 365 370 52 1178 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 256 0 0 263 0 0 42 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 539 1003 182 213 244 102 370 52 1136 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.78 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.2 45.7 45.7 11.2 30.7 30.7 40.6 40.6 55.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 26.2 45.7 45.7 11.2 30.7 30.7 40.6 40.6 55.8' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.51 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 787 1336 561 343 969 747 1267 688 1414 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.31 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.03 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.75 0.32 0.62 0.25 0.14 0.29 0.08 0.80 Progression Factor 0.85 0.81 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.88 0.23 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.8 3.2 1.2 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 Delay (s) 34.2 25.3 23.1 49.9 31.4 30.1 17.8 19.7 7.3 Level of Service C C C D C C B B A' Approach Delay (s) 27.2 35.6 10.1 0.0 Approach 'LOS C D B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 1457 0 79 14 92 1 3 3 101 607 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1551 1770 1583 1631 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1502 0 81 14 95 1 3 3 104 626 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 72 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1502 42 0 14 95 1 0 0 107 554 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type Perm custom Perm custom Protected 'Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 2 Actuated Green, G' (s) 56.8 56.8 2.6 42.6 1.1 37.0 97.3'' Effective Green, g (s) 56.8 56.8 2.6 42.6 1.1 37.0 97.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.39 0.01 0.34' 0.88' Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 20 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1773 801 42 613 16 624 2465 v/s Ratio Prot c0.44 c0.01 0.06 c0.00 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.05 0.33 0.15 0.06 0.17 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 22.9 13.2 52.8 22.0 53.9 25.7 0.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 11.94' Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 26.7 13.2 54.6 22.5 54.6 19.8 10.9' Level of Service C B D C D B B Approach 'Delay (s) 26.0 26.6 54.6 12.2 Approach LOS C C D B HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 266 1238 537 81 486 11 238 40 150 20 54 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5' 4.5 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 4648 1736 4971 3221 1648 1532 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 1276 554 84 501 11 245 41 155 21' 56 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 140 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 1830 0 84 510 0 189 97 15 21' 56 7' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 51.2 Approach 'LOS F D 12 D Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 6 4 HCM Average Control Delay Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Perm' 119.2 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 Intersection Capacity Utilization 4 4 119.5% ICU Level of Service 8 Permitted' Phases' Analysis Period (min) 15 4' 8' 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 31.5 34.0 6.0 50.0 11.9 11.9 11.9 10.3 10.3 10.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 31.5 34.0 6.0 46.5 11.9 11.9 11.9 10.3' 10.3 10.3' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.29 0.05 0.39 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5' 4.5 4.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 450 1326 87 1939 322 165 153 111' 161 137 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.39 0.05 0.10 0.06 c0.06 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.38 0.97 0.26 0.59 0.59 0.10 0.19 0.35 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.3 175.8 83.9 0.1 1.8 3.4 0.1 0.8' 1.3 0.1' Delay (s) 40.8 218.4 140.4 24.8 53.1 54.7 48.9 51.4 52.6 50.1 Level of Service D F F C D D D' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 195.3 41.1 52.0 51.2 Approach 'LOS F D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 130.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 119.5% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 1320 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3827 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3827 1553 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1361 443 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1361 443 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1172 476 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.16 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 82.3 24.7 Delay (s) 123.7 64.9 Level of Service F E Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 1809 198 32 349 63 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1,00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 3444 1752 3505 1697 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 3444 1752 3505 1697 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1865 204 33 360 65 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 6 0 0 0 17 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2063 0 33 360 80 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 64.6 16.1 69.9 16.8 Effective Green, g (s) 64.6 16.1 69.9 16.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.15 0.64 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2023 256 2227 259 v/s Ratio Prot c0.60 c0.02 c0.10 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.02 0.13 0.16 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 40.8 8.1 41.4 Progression Factor 0.57 1.74 0.15 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 22.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 35.2 71.0 1.2 41.7 Level of Service D E A D Approach Delay (s) 35.2 7.1 41.7 Approach 'LOS D A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 + r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 28 1032 647 43 205 0 143 3 41 0 3 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1845 1516 1752 3505 1752 1565 1670 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 1064 667 44 211 0 147 3 42 0 3 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 1064 489 44 211 0 147 9 0 0 4 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 10.9 HCM Level of Service 1 B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.79 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 76.0 76.0 6.0 70.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.3 76.0 76.0 6.0 70.7 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.69 0.69 0.05 0.64 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 1275 1047 96 2253 201 228 243 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.58 c0.03 0.06 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.83 0.47 0.46 0.09 0.73 0.04 0.02 Progression Factor 0.97 0.17 0.02 0.86 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 5.4 1.2 1.3 0.1 11.2 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 44.0 7.6 1.4 44.4 6.6 56.1 40.4 40.3 Level of Service D A A D A E D D Approach Delay (s) 5.8 13.1 52.4 40.3 Approach 'LOS A B D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + r Volume (vph) 248 320 86 228 142 69 35 421 179 483 481 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.93' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1625 1337 3060 1660 1384 1518 3036 1358 1395 2898 1281' Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 256 330 89 235 146 71 36 434 185 498' 496 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 586 32 235 146 6 36 434 185 324 670 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E 45 D Intersection Summary 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 HCM Average Control Delay 3 59.9 HCM Level of Service 1 E 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Split Sum of lost time (s) Perm Split 16.0 Perm Split pt+ov' Split 88.8% Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 Analysis Period (min) 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 14.3 14.3 23.3 24.7 24.7 24.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 36.0 36.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 14.3 14.3 23.3 24.7' 24.7 24.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 585 481 275 149 125 217 434 316 345' 716 316 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.08 c0.09 0.02 c0.14 0.14 c0.23 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.07 0.85 0.98 0.05 0.17 1.00 0.59 0.94 0.94 0.09 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.85 1.03 0.79 0.86 0.70 0.84 0.84 1.08 Incremental Delay,' d2 37.6 0.0 21.7 66.5 0.2 0.2 41.9 2.2 32.2' 19.1 0.5' Delay (s) 69.6 21.0 60.1 105.2 42.9 29.8 78.9 25.9 63.1 50.2 31.7 Level of Service E C E F D C E C' E D C Approach Delay (s) 63.2 72.0 61.3 52.1 Approach 'LOS E E E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 59.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 108 572 143 65 35 151 0 0 489 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1596 1665 1670 3342 3338 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1596 1665 1670 3342 3338 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 111 590 147 67 36 156 0 0 504 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 111 401 397 0 0 192 0 0 549 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.4 52.4 52.4 13.4 22.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.4 52.4 52.4 13.4 22.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 872 875 448 741 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.24 0.24 0.06 c0 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 14.9 14.9 39.8 36.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.8 1.7 1.7 0.3 4.0 Delay (s) 43.1 16.7 16.6 30.0 40.2 Level of Service D B B C D Approach Delay (s) 43.1 16.6 30.0 40.2 Approach 'LOS D B C D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r 0.97 + r 0.97 0 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 119 188 111 324 208 177 205 50 361 142 666 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1579 3309 1553 1579 3257 1553 1687 2882 1703 3406 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 123 194 114 334 214 182 211 52 372 146 687 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 101 0 0 147 0 344 0 0 0 46 Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 215 13 180 368 35 211 80 0 146 687 30 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D D 7 Intersection Summary 3 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 HCM Average Control Delay 4 30.7 HCM Level of Service 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Split 100.0 Prot Split Prot Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 15 5 2 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.1 7.5 48.7 40.1 40.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.1 7.5 48.7' 40.1 40.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 377 177 259 534 255 272 216 829' 1366 600 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 0.01 c0.11 0.11 0.02 c0.13 0.03 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.69 0.69 0.14 0.78 0.37 0.18 0.50 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.84 1.29 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.30 0.27 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.4 1.3 0.1 6.2 2.9 0.1 11.9 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.1' Delay (s) 44.4 43.3 39.6 39.2 36.0 46.3 52.1 44.4 3.7 7.8 5.0 Level of Service D D D D D D D D A A A Approach Delay (s) 42.6 39.4 47.0 6.9 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 1� r 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 92 199 400 24 95 7 428 1013 345 6 167 186 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1627 1443 1736 1805 3400 3347 1736 1827 1512 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 205 412 25 98 7 441 1044 356 6 172 192 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 227 0 3 0 0 31 0 0 0 166 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 304 66 25 102 0 441 1369 0 6 172 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 B 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 30.2 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot 100.0 Perm Prot 12.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 D 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 8.9 22.4 22.4 2.4 15.9 45.5 45.5 13.7 13.7 13.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.9 22.4 22.4 2.4 15.9 45.5 45.5 13.7' 13.7 13.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.16 0.46 0.46 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 364 323 42 287 1547 1523 238' 250 207 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.19 0.01 c0.06 0.13 c0.41 0.00 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.83 0.20 0.60 0.36 0.29 0.90 0.03 0.69 0.13 Progression Factor 0.88 1.02 1.87 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.55 0.79 0.83 1.26 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.8 14.0 0.1 14.2 0.3 0.3 6.6 0.0' 4.5 0.1' Delay (s) 43.5 51.7 59.3 62.5 37.8 9.3 20.3 29.4 38.7 47.7 Level of Service D D E E D A C C D DD Approach Delay (s) 53.7 42.5 17.7 43.2 Approach 'LOS D D B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 18 60 25 170 262 15 76 411 104 1257 80 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.99' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1517 1752 1822 1736 3471 1502 3355 2692 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 62 26 175 270 15 78 424 107 1296 82 443 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 2 0 0 0 88 0 0 125 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 2 175 283 0 78 424 19 1378' 0 318 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service D 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot H Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9 7.9 10.0 19.9 8.1 17.5 17.5 50.6 50.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 7.9 7.9 10.0 19.9 8.1 17.5 17.5 50.6' 50.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.20 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.51 0.51 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 120 175 363 141 607 263 1698' 1362 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.10 0.16 0.04 c0.12 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.02 1.00 0.78 0.55 0.70 0.07 0.81 0.23 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.85 0.95 1.08 1.97 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.0 0.0 63.0 13.3 2.2 5.5 0.4' 2.9' 0.0' Delay (s) 47.4 42.5 102.6 45.6 44.3 47.4 68.2 23.6 13.9 Level of Service D D F D D D E' C B Approach Delay (s) 46.2 67.3 50.6 21.2 Approach 'LOS D E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 40 25 18 219 10 99 24 308 541 476 364 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1773 1522 1649 1660 1502 1752 3034 1341 3367 3384 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 26 19 226 10 102 25 318 558 491' 375 64 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 0 90 0 172 225 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 67 1 118 118 12 25 425 54 491' 429 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) A Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3 % 3% 3 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split A Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 7.2 11.7 11.7 11.7 2.4 19.3 19.3 45.8 62.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 7.2 7.2 11.7 11.7 11.7 2.4 19.3 19.3 45.8' 62.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.46 0.63 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 128 110 193 194 176 42 586 259 1542' 2122 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.07 0.07 0.01 c0.14 c0.15 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.01 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.60 0.73 0.21 0.32 0.20 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.49 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.8 0.0 4.0 3.7 0.1 14.2 3.8 0.1 0.5' 0.2 Delay (s) 46.5 43.1 46.0 45.6 39.4 62.5 41.6 34.1 11.7 4.1 Level of Service D D D D D E D C' B A Approach Delay (s) 45.8 43.9 39.9 8.1 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 72 910 542 41 85 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 5036 4974 1752 1523 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 5036 4974 1752 1523 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 938 559 42 88 99 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 938 598 0 88 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 82.5 70.9 9.5 9.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 82.5 70.9 9.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.82 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 4155 3527 166 145 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.19 0.12 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.23 0.17 0.53 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 44.6 1.9 4.8 43.1 41.2 Progression Factor 0.77 1.72 0.60 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.1 Delay (s) 35.4 3.3 3.0 44.7 41.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 5.6 3.0 42.9 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0 0.97 t Volume (vph) 231 1589 95 145 299 56 47 427 638 255 152 26 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4982 1752 4902 1752 3129 1736 3385 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 238 1638 98 149 308 58 48 440 658 263' 157 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 34 0 0 140 0 0 13 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 1729 0 149 332 0 48 958 0 263' 171 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) F Intersection Summary 18 3 13 HCM Average Control Delay 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 63.1 HCM Level of Service 8 E 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4' 1.01 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 3 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot 101.5% ICU Level of Service Prot G Prot Analysis Period (min) Prot 15 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 right lane. 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 32.9 34.4 8.0 9.5 4.2 27.6 14.0 37.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 32.9 34.4 8.0 9.5 4.2 27.6 14.0' 37.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.34 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.28 0.14 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 576 1714 140 466 74 864 243' 1266 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.35 c0.09 0.07 0.03 c0.31 c0.15 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.41 1.01 1.06 0.71 0.65 1.21 dr 1.08 0.13 Progression Factor 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.86 1.44 0.47 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 22.4 92.9 8.6 7.5 58.1 81.4 0.0 Delay (s) 24.6 53.3 131.3 46.2 75.5 75.2 124.4 20.7 Level of Service C D F D E E F C Approach Delay (s) 49.9 70.8 75.2 81.7 Approach 'LOS D E E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 63.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c' Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 625 1622 235 22 273 86 131 127 103 183 153 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3421 1752 3367 1665 1744 1531 1752 1735 1457 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 644 1672 242 23 281 89 135 131 106 189' 158 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 25 0 0 0 93 0 3 75 Lane Group Flow (vph) 644 1906 0 23 345 0 121 145 13 189' 165 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 43.9 5 D 1 B 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 100.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 91.0% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 53.8 2.4 31.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 15.1 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 24.5 53.8 2.4 31.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 15.1' 15.1 15.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.54 0.02 0.32 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 833 1840 42 1067 211 221 194' 265' 262 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.56 0.01 c0.10 0.07 c0.08 c0.11 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.77 1.04 0.55 0.32 0.57 0.66 0.07 0.71 0.63 0.06 Progression Factor 0.74 0.91 0.55 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 18.4 7.6 0.8 2.3 5.3 0.1 7.4 3.6 0.0' Delay (s) 26.6 39.5 34.1 12.8 43.4 46.8 38.5 47.7 43.5 36.4 Level of Service C D C B D D D' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 36.2 14.1 43.4 43.9 Approach 'LOS D B D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 3 1226 123 47 202 9 78 36 429 7 27 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.86 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3447 1752 3483 1752 1570 1813 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1264 127 48 208 9 80 37 442 7 28 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 93 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1384 0 48 215 0 80 386 0 0 36 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 53.5 6.4 59.1 27.6 27.6 27.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 0.8 53.5 6.4 59.1 27.6 27.6 27.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.54 0.06 0.59 0.28 0.28 0.28 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1844 112 2058 373 433 378 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.40 c0.03 0.06 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.75 0.43 0.10 0.21 0.89 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 49.3 18.1 45.0 8.9 27.9 34.7 26.9 Progression Factor 1.42 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.4 2.5 1.0 0.1 0.1 19.4 0.0 Delay (s) 72.5 7.3 46.0 9.0 28.0 54.2 26.9 Level of Service E A D A C D C Approach Delay (s) 7.4 15.7 50.4 26.9 Approach 'LOS A B D C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 117: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 4 r Volume (vph) 95 731 3 1 251 27 0 0 1 42 1 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.86 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3436 1719 3388 1565 1725 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 754 3 1 259 28 0 0 1 43' 1 133' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 114 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 756 0 1 275 0 0 0 0 0 44 19 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Perm' Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted' Phases 2 6' 6' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 16.9 0.5 13.3 5.0 5.0 5.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.1 16.9 0.5 13.3 5.0 5.0 5.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.01 0.39 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 1688 25 1310 227 208 224 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.22 0.00 0.08 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.45 0.04 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 14.2 5.7 16.7 7.0 12.6 13.0 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.2' Delay (s) 15.9 5.9 17.4 7.1 12.6 13.5 12.9 Level of Service l3B A B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 7.0 7.2 12.6 13.0 Approach 'LOS A A B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 119: Forbes & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt 0 r Volume (vph) 127 357 76 60 390 303 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3438 3210 1719 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Setd. Flow (perm) 1719 3438 3210 1719 1538 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 131 368 78 62 402 312 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 0 196 Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 368 89 0 402 116 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 17.5 7.4 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 6.1 17.5 7.4 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.43 0.18 0.37 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 258 1482 585 639 572 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.11 0.03 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.25 0.15 0.63 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 15.9 7.4 14.0 10.5 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 1.6 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.2 Delay (s) 17.4 7.4 14.1 12.4 8.8 Level of Service ZB A B B A Approach Delay (s) 10.1 14.1 10.8 Approach 'LOS B B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 21 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 246 tt 0 140 r Volume (veh /h) 239 1423 204 14 0 54 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 14 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 246 1467 210 14 0 56 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 533 pX, platoon unblocked 0.71 vC, conflicting volume 225 1444 112 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 218 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1226 vCu, unblocked vol 225 823 112 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 81 100 94 cM capacity (veh /h) 1319 307 907 Volume Total 246 734 734 140 85 56 Volume Left 246 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 14 56 cSH 1319 1700 1700 1700 1700 907 Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 0 0 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 Lane LOS A A Approach 'Delay (s) 1.2 0.0 9.2 Approach LOS A Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 312 192 80 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 22 431 87 116 140 8 62 6 109 10 8 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 444 90 120 144 8 64 6 112 10 8 11 Volume Total (vph) 245 312 192 80 182 30 Volume Left (vph) 23 0 120 0 64 10 Volume Right (vph) 0 90 0 8 112 11 H adj (s) 0.15 -0.10 0.41 0.03 - ,0.20 - -0.06 Departure Headway (s) 5.6 5.4 6.2 5.8 5.6 6.1 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.38 0.47 0,33 0.13 0.28 0.05 Capacity (veh /h) 613 650 555 587 597 517 Control Delay (s) 10.9 11.9 11.1 8.5 10.8 9.4 Approach Delay (s) 11.4 10.3 10.8 9.4 Approach 'LOS B B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 AM Base Case + Project Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 315 3 295 0 31 619 607 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3309 3317 1703 3406 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3309 3317 1703 3406 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 325 3 304 0 32 638 626 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 327 0 322 0 0 638 626 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 12.2 24.1 39.3 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 12.2 24.1 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.22 0.44 0.71 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 493 736 746 2434 v/s Ratio Prot Co. 10 c0.10 c0.37 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.66 0.44 0.86 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 22.1 18.4 13.9 2.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.4 1.9 9.5 0.3 Delay (s) 25.5 14.7 23.3 3.0 Level of Service C B C A Approach Delay (s) 25.5 14.7 13.3 0.0 Approach 'LOS C B B A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations 0.97 tt tt r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 217 295 804 118 31 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 3406 1489 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 224 304 829 122 32 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 39 0 38 Lane Group Flow (vph) 224 304 829 83 32 8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 7% 7% 6% 6% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.2 97.9 74.7 74.7 3.6 19.2 Effective Green, g,(s) 19.2 97.9 74.7 74.7 3.6 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.89 0.68 0.68 0.03 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 3003 2313 1011 112 276 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.09 c0.24 c0.01 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.10 0.36 0.08 0.29 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 43.2 0.7 7.5 6.0 51.9 37.7 Progression Factor 0.82 0.51 1.24 2.15 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 9.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 44.8 0.4 9.7 13.1 52.5 37.7 Level of Service D A A B D D Approach Delay (s) 19.3 10.1 43.7 Approach 'LOS B B D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5' Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 102 1043 49 193 217 184 45 226 481 387 286 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 4857 3367 3232 1687 1776 2656 3303 3406 1498 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 1075 51 199 224 190 46 233 496 399' 295 181' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 168 0 0 0 39 0 0 130 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 1122 0 199 246 0 46 233 457 399' 295 51' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25.2 3 C D D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4 % 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 110.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 45.0 10.2 12.5 5.8 19.0 29.2 17.8 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 42.7 45.0 10.2 12.5 5.8 19.0 29.2 17.8' 31.0 31.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.39 0.41 0.09 0.11 0.05 0.17 0.27 0.16 0.28 0.28 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 661 1987 312 367 89 307 705 534 960 422 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.23 0.06 c0.08 0.03 c0.13 0.17 c0.12 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.56 0.64 0.67 0.52 0.76 0.65 0.75 0.31 0.12 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.63 0.39 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 1.2 3.1 3.5 2.1 9.2 1.5 4.8' 0.1 0.0' Delay (s) 22.5 26.1 38.2 40.8 52.8 52.5 37.4 35.8 19.5 11.4 Level of Service C C D D D D D' D B B Approach Delay (s) 25.8 39.9 42.9 25.2 Approach 'LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 19.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 523 883 505 207 235 343 359 50 1143 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3303 3211 1351 3367 3471 2675 3433 1863 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 539 910 521 213 242 354 370 52 1178 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 253 0 0 256 0 0 44 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 539 993 179 213 242 98 370 52 1134 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 22.4 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.78 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 45.7 45.7 11.2 30.6 30.6 40.6 40.6 55.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 26.3 45.7 45.7 11.2 30.6 30.6 40.6 40.6 55.8' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.51 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 790 1334 561 343 966 744 1267 688 1414 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.31 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.03 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.74 0.32 0.62 0.25 0.13 0.29 0.08 0.80 Progression Factor 0.84 0.80 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.88 0.23 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.8 3.1 1.2 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 Delay (s) 33.9 25.0 22.8 49.9 31.4 30.1 17.8 19.7 7.2 Level of Service C C C D C C B B A' Approach Delay (s) 27.0 35.7 10.1 0.0 Approach 'LOS C D B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 1457 0 79 14 92 1 3 3 101 607 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1551 1770 1583 1631 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1502 0 81 14 95 1 3 3 104 626 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 72 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1502 42 0 14 95 1 0 0 107 554 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type Perm custom Perm custom Protected 'Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted Phases 3 2 Actuated Green, G' (s) 56.8 56.8 2.6 42.6 1.1 37.0 97.3'' Effective Green, g (s) 56.8 56.8 2.6 42.6 1.1 37.0 97.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.39 0.01 0.34' 0.88' Clearance Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 20 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1773 801 42 613 16 624 2465 v/s Ratio Prot c0.44 c0.01 0.06 c0.00 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.05 0.33 0.15 0.06 0.17 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 22.9 13.2 52.8 22.0 53.9 25.7 0.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 11.89' Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 26.7 13.2 54.6 22.5 54.6 19.6 10.9' Level of Service C B D C D B B Approach 'Delay (s) 26.0 26.6 54.6 12.2 Approach LOS C C D B HCM Average Control Delay 21.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 266 1223 537 81 473 11 238 40 150 20 54 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 46466 1736 4971 3221 1648 1532 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 1261 554 84 488 11 245 41 155 21' 56 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 140 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 1815 0 84 497 0 189 97 15 21' 56 7' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 51.2 Approach 'LOS F D 12 D Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 6 4 HCM Average Control Delay Heavy Vehicles ( %) 6% 6% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Perm' 119.2 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 Intersection Capacity Utilization 4 4 118.1% ICU Level of Service 8 Permitted' Phases' Analysis Period (min) 15 4' 8' 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 31.5 34.0 6.0 50.0 11.9 11.9 11.9 10.3 10.3 10.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 31.5 34.0 6.0 46.5 11.9 11.9 11.9 10.3' 10.3 10.3' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.29 0.05 0.39 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5' 4.5 4.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 450 1325 87 1939 322 165 153 111' 161 137 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.39 0.05 0.10 0.06 c0.06 c0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.37 0.97 0.26 0.59 0.59 0.10 0.19 0.35 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.3 171.3 83.9 0.1 1.8 3.4 0.1 0.8' 1.3 0.1' Delay (s) 40.8 213.9 140.4 24.7 53.1 54.7 48.9 51.4 52.6 50.1 Level of Service D F F C D D D' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 191.2 41.4 52.0 51.2 Approach 'LOS F D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 125.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.2 Sum of lost time (s) 16.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 118.1% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 1288 430 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3827 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3827 1553 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1328 443 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1328 443 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 36.5 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1172 476 v/s Ratio Prot c0.35 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.13 0.93 Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 70.9 24.7 Delay (s) 112.3 64.9 Level of Service F E Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 1791 168 32 047 52 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1,00 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 3452 1752 3505 1689 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (perm) 3452 1752 3505 1689 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1846 173 33 358 54 32 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2014 0 33 358 65 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 64.9 16.1 70.2 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 64.9 16.1 70.2 16.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.15 0.64 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2037 256 2237 253 v/s Ratio Prot c0.58 c0.02 c0.10 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.99 0.13 0.16 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 222 40.8 8.0 41.3 Progression Factor 0.57 1.71 0.15 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 14.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 Delay (s) 27.1 70.1 1.2 41.5 Level of Service C E A D Approach Delay (s) 27.1 7.0 41.5 Approach 'LOS C A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 + r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 28 1032 629 43 205 0 141 3 41 0 3 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1845 1516 1752 3505 1752 1565 1670 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 1064 648 44 211 0 145 3 42 0 3 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 29 1064 475 44 211 0 145 9 0 0 4 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 76.0 76.0 6.1 70.8 15.9 15.9 15.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.3 76.0 76.0 6.1 70.8 15.9 15.9 15.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.69 0.69 0.06 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 1275 1047 97 2256 200 226 241 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.58 c0.03 0.06 0.01 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.83 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.72 0.04 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 45.0 12.4 7.7 50.3 7.4 45.0 40.5 40.3 Progression Factor 0.96 0.19 0.02 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 5.4 1.2 1.2 0.1 10.5 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 43.4 7.8 1.3 44.3 6.5 55.5 40.5 40.4 Level of Service D A A D A E D D Approach Delay (s) 6.0 13.0 51.9 40.4 Approach 'LOS A B D D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + r Volume (vph) 248 316 86 228 141 69 35 421 178 461 481 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.93' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1624 1337 3060 1660 1384 1518 3036 1358 1395 2900 1281' Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 256 326 89 235 145 71 36 434 184 475' 496 113 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 582 32 235 145 6 36 434 184 313' 658 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E 45 D Intersection Summary 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 HCM Average Control Delay 3 58.1 HCM Level of Service 1 E 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Split Sum of lost time (s) Perm Split 16.0 Perm Split pt+ov' Split 88.0% Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 Analysis Period (min) 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 14.5 14.5 23.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 36.0 36.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 14.5 14.5 23.5 24.5' 24.5 24.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 585 481 275 149 125 220 440 319 342' 711 314 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.08 c0.09 0.02 c0.14 0.14 0.22 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.07 0.85 0.97 0.05 0.16 0.99 0.58 0.92 0.93 0.09 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.87 1.06 0.79 0.86 0.70 0.83 0.84 1.05 Incremental Delay,' d2 35.7 0.0 21.8 64.9 0.2 0.2 37.7 1.9 28.6' 18.0 0.5' Delay (s) 67.6 21.0 61.0 104.5 44.2 29.9 74.5 25.5 59.2 48.8 30.9 Level of Service E C E F D C E C' E D C Approach Delay (s) 61.4 72.4 58.3 49.9 Approach 'LOS E E E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 58.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 107 552 143 65 35 151 0 0 488 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1596 1665 1670 3342 3338 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1596 1665 1670 3342 3338 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 110 569 147 67 36 156 0 0 503 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 110 393 383 0 0 192 0 0 548 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.4 52.5 52.5 13.4 22.1 Effective Green, g (s) 13.4 52.5 52.5 13.4 22.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.52 0.52 0.13 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214 874 877 448 738 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.24 0.23 0.06 c0 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.51 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 40.3 14.8 14.6 39.8 36.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.8 1.7 1.6 0.3 4.1 Delay (s) 43.0 16.4 16.2 29.8 40.4 Level of Service D B B C D Approach Delay (s) 43.0 16.3 29.8 40.4 Approach 'LOS D B C D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r 0.97 + r 0.97 0 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 119 187 111 311 208 177 205 50 361 142 666 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1579 3309 1553 1579 3258 1553 1687 2882 1703 3406 1496 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 123 193 114 321 214 182 211 52 372 146 687 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 101 0 0 150 0 344 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 214 13 173 362 32 211 80 0 146 687 31' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D D 7 Intersection Summary 3 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 HCM Average Control Delay 4 30.6 HCM Level of Service 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 7 % 7% 7 % 6% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Split 100.0 Prot Split Prot Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 15 5 2 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 7.5 48.9 40.3 40.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.1 7.5 48.9' 40.3 40.3' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 377 177 256 528 252 272 216 833' 1373 603 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.06 0.01 0.11 c0.11 0.02 c0.13 0.03 0.09 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.68 0.69 0.13 0.78 0.37 0.18 0.50 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.23 0.29 0.27 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.4 1.2 0.1 5.3 2.8 0.1 11.9 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.1' Delay (s) 44.4 43.1 39.6 37.9 35.7 47.8 52.1 44.4 3.7 7.7 5.0 Level of Service D D D D D D D D A A A Approach Delay (s) 42.5 39.3 47.0 6.8 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 1� r 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 92 198 400 24 85 7 428 1011 333 6 167 183 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1627 1443 1736 1803 3400 3351 1736 1827 1512 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 204 412 25 88 7 441 1042 343 6 172 189 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 228 0 3 0 0 29 0 0 0 163 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 303 65 25 92 0 441 1356 0 6 172 26 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 B 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 29.8 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot 100.0 Perm Prot 12.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 D 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 22.2 22.2 2.4 13.1 45.7 45.7 13.7 13.7 13.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.5 22.2 22.2 2.4 13.1 45.7 45.7 13.7' 13.7 13.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 200 361 320 42 236 1554 1531 238' 250 207 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.19 0.01 c0.05 0.13 c0.40 0.00 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.84 0.20 0.60 0.39 0.28 0.89 0.03 0.69 0.13 Progression Factor 0.89 1.02 1.88 1.00 1.00 0.52 0.54 0.79 0.84 1.27 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.6 14.4 0.1 14.2 0.4 0.3 5.9 0.0' 4.6 0.1' Delay (s) 37.5 52.3 59.6 62.5 40.2 9.2 19.3 29.4 39.0 48.0 Level of Service D D E E D A B C D DD Approach Delay (s) 53.3 44.8 16.8 43.5 Approach 'LOS D D B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 18 60 25 170 260 15 76 411 104 1245 80 418 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.99' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1517 1752 1822 1736 3471 1503 3355 2692 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 19 62 26 175 268 15 78 424 107 1284 82 431' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 2 0 0 0 87 0 0 125 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 81 2 175 281 0 78 424 20 1366 0 306 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service D 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot H Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9 7.9 10.0 20.7 8.2 18.4 18.4 49.7 49.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 7.9 7.9 10.0 20.7 8.2 18.4 18.4' 49.7' 49.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.21 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.50 0.50 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 120 175 377 142 639 277 1667' 1338 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.10 c0.15 0.04 c0.12 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.11' v/c Ratio 0.57 0.02 1.00 0.75 0.55 0.66 0.07 0.82 0.23 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.85 0.95 1.08 1.96 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.0 0.0 63.1 11.0 1.9 4.5 0.4' 3.1' 0.0' Delay (s) 47.4 42.5 102.8 42.6 43.7 45.4 66.4 24.4 14.3 Level of Service D D F D D D E' C B Approach Delay (s) 46.2 65.6 48.9 22.0 Approach 'LOS D E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 40 25 18 216 10 99 24 306 529 464 364 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1773 1522 1649 1660 1502 1752 3036 1341 3367 3384 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 26 19 223 10 102 25 315 545 478 375 64 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 0 90 0 168 220 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 67 1 116 117 12 25 420 52 478' 429 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) A Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3 % 3% 3 % 4% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split A Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 7.2 11.6 11.6 11.6 2.4 19.0 19.0 46.2 62.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 7.2 7.2 11.6 11.6 11.6 2.4 19.0 19.0 46.2' 62.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.46 0.63 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 128 110 191 193 174 42 577 255 1556' 2125 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.07 c0.07 0.01 c0.14 c0.14 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.01 0.61 0.61 0.07 0.60 0.73 0.20 0.31 0.20 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.49 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.8 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.1 14.2 3.9 0.1 0.5' 0.2 Delay (s) 46.5 43.1 45.7 45.7 39.4 62.5 41.9 34.3 11.3 4.1 Level of Service D D D D D E D C' B A Approach Delay (s) 45.8 43.8 40.2 7.8 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 72 883 540 41 85 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 5036 4974 1752 1523 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 5036 4974 1752 1523 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 74 910 557 42 88 99 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 910 596 0 88 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 82.5 70.9 9.5 9.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 82.5 70.9 9.5 9.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.82 0.71 0.10 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 4155 3527 166 145 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 c0.18 0.12 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.22 0.17 0.53 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 44.6 1.9 4.8 43.1 41.2 Progression Factor 0.77 1.66 0.64 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.4 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.1 Delay (s) 35.8 3.2 3.2 44.7 41.3 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 5.6 3.2 42.9 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt rr Volume (vph) 943 25 15 355 226 910 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 5004 1752 5036 1752 2696 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 5004 1752 5036 1752 2696 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 972 26 15 366 233 938 RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 0 0 0 211 Lane Group Flow (vph) 996 0 15 366 233 727 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.2 2.6 58.8 33.2 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 52.2 2.6 58.8 33.2 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.03 0.59 0.33 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2612 46 2961 582 895 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.01 0.07 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.33 0.12 0.40 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 47.8 9.2 25.7 30.5 Progression Factor 0.56 1.17 0.52 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 1.5 0.1 0.2 5.4 Delay (s) 8.5 57.5 4.9 25.9 35.9 Level of Service A E A C D Approach Delay (s) 8.5 6.9 33.9 Approach 'LOS A A C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 575 1607 235 17 270 86 131 117 98 183 147 93 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3421 1752 3366 1665 1743 1531 1752 1734 1457 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 593 1657 242 18 278 89 135 121 101 189' 152 96 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 25 0 0 0 89 0 3 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 593 1891 0 18 342 0 121 135 12 189' 159 13 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 43.5 5 C 1 B 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 100.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 90.3% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 54.4 2.4 33.9 12.1 12.1 12.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 22.9 54.4 2.4 33.9 12.1 12.1 12.1 15.1' 15.1 15.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.54 0.02 0.34 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 779 1861 42 1141 201 211 185 265' 262 220 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 c0.55 0.01 c0.10 0.07 c0.08 c0.11 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.76 1.02 0.43 0.30 0.60 0.64 0.07 0.71 0.61 0.06 Progression Factor 0.77 0.92 0.54 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 10.9 2.5 0.7 3.5 4.6 0.1 7.4 2.7 0.0' Delay (s) 28.0 31.9 28.4 11.4 45.1 46.5 39.0 47.7 42.4 36.4 Level of Service C C C B D D D' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 31.0 12.2 43.9 43.5 Approach 'LOS C B D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 3 1206 123 43 194 9 78 36 406 7 27 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.86 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3446 1752 3482 1752 1571 1813 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 0.75 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1243 127 44 200 9 80 37 419 7 28 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 97 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1363 0 44 207 0 80 359 0 0 36 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 0.8 56.6 4.6 60.4 26.3 26.3 26.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 0.8 56.6 4.6 60.4 26.3 26.3 26.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.57 0.05 0.60 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 14 1950 81 2103 356 413 360 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.40 c0.03 0.06 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.70 0.54 0.10 0.22 0.87 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 49.3 15.6 46.7 8.3 28.9 35.2 27.9 Progression Factor 1.43 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.4 1.9 3.9 0.1 0.1 17.3 0.0 Delay (s) 72.8 5.5 50.6 8.4 29.0 52.5 27.9 Level of Service E A D A C D C Approach Delay (s) 5.6 15.8 49.0 27.9 Approach 'LOS A B D C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 117: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 *' r Volume (vph) 95 731 3 1 243 16 0 0 1 12 1 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.86 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3436 1719 3407 1565 1730 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 98 754 3 1 251 16 0 0 1 12 1 133' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 115 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 756 0 1 260 0 0 0 0 0 13 18 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Perm' Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted' Phases 2 6' 6' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 16.7 0.5 13.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.1 16.7 0.5 13.1 4.7 4.7 4.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.01 0.39 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 208 1693 25 1317 217 205 213' v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.22 0.00 0.08 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.01 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.45 0.04 0.20 0.00 0.06 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 13.9 5.6 16.5 6.9 12.6 12.7 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 1.7 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2' Delay (s) 15.6 5.8 17.1 7.0 12.6 12.8 12.9 Level of Service ZB A B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.0 12.6 12.9 Approach 'LOS A A B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 33.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 119: Forbes & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt 0 r Volume (vph) 125 357 75 60 390 285 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3438 3208 1719 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Setd. Flow (perm) 1719 3438 3208 1719 1538 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 129 368 77 62 402 294 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 51 0 0 186 Lane Group Flow (vph) 129 368 88 0 402 108 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.1 17.5 7.4 14.9 14.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 6.1 17.5 7.4 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.43 0.18 0.37 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 260 1489 588 634 567 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.11 0.03 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.25 0.15 0.63 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 15.7 7.3 13.9 10.5 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 1.5 0.1 0.1 2.1 0.2 Delay (s) 17.2 7.4 14.0 12.6 8.8 Level of Service ZB A B B A Approach Delay (s) 9.9 14.0 11.0 Approach 'LOS A B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 21 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 202 tt 0 140 r Volume (veh /h) 196 1423 204 13 0 42 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 13 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 202 1467 210 13 0 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 533 pX, platoon unblocked 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 224 1355 112 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 217 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1138 vCu, unblocked vol 224 773 112 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.4 p0 queue free % 85 100 95 cM capacity (veh /h) 1321 344 907 Volume Total 202 734 734 140 84 43 Volume Left 202 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 13 43 cSH 1321 1700 1700 1700 1700 907 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 0 0 0 0 4 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.2 Lane LOS A A Approach 'Delay (s) 1.0 0.0 9.2 Approach LOS A Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 311 175 77 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 22 430 87 103 134 8 62 6 108 10 8 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 23 443 90 106 138 8 64 6 111 10 8 11 Volume Total (vph) 244 311 175 77 181 30 Volume Left (vph) 23 0 106 0 64 10 Volume Right (vph) 0 90 0 8 111 11 H adj (s) 0.15 -0.10 0.40 0.03 - ,0.20 - -0.06 Departure Headway (s) 5.6 5.4 6.2 5.8 5.6 6.0 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.38 0.46 0,30 0.13 0.28 0.05 Capacity (veh /h) 617 654 556 588 603 524 Control Delay (s) 10.8 11.7 10.7 8.5 10.7 9.4 Approach Delay (s) 11.3 10.0 10.7 9.4 Approach 'LOS B A B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 204 3 228 0 14 594 438 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3339 3469 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3339 3469 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 217 3 243 0 15 632 466 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 219 0 255 0 0 632 466 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 3% 0% 3% 5% 5% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 37.8 49.2 90.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 12.5 37.8 49.2 90.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.34 0.45 0.82 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 379 1192 769 2813 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.07 c0.37 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.82 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 46.2 25.6 26.6 2.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.1 0.4 7.1 0.1 Delay (s) 48.4 28.0 33.6 2.2 Level of Service D C C A Approach Delay (s) 48.4 28.0 20.3 0.0 Approach 'LOS D C C A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.95 t 0.95 t rr 0.95 tt r Volume (vph) 101 1006 27 162 179 42 27 99 282 263 204 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4501 2993 3265 1752 1845 2707 2918 3438 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 106 1059 28 171 188 44 28 104 297 277' 215 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 25 0 0 0 97 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 1085 0 171 207 0 28 104 200 277 215 40 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 26.2 3 B C D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 15% 5% 17% 8% 5% 3 % 3% 5 % 20% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 110.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 52.6 53.3 10.7 11.4 4.3 11.6 22.3 16.4 23.7 23.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 52.6 53.3 10.7 11.4 4.3 11.6 22.3 16.4 23.7 23.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.15 0.22 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 846 2181 291 338 68 195 549 435' 741 325 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.24 0.06 c0.06 0.02 c0.06 0.07 c0.09 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.50 0.59 0.61 0.41 0.53 0.36 0.64 0.29 0.12 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.52 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.73 0.30 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.3 0.8 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.4 0.1 2.2' 0.1 0.1' Delay (s) 16.2 20.1 26.6 24.4 53.1 48.0 37.9 36.6 26.4 10.5 Level of Service B C C C D D D' D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.7 25.3 41.3 26.2 Approach 'LOS B C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 r 0.98 tt r 0.98 0.98 rr Volume (vph) 498 641 412 137 109 221 274 38 413 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2918 3037 1195 3400 3406 1519 1633 1657 2707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 508 654 420 140 111 226 280 39 421 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 142 0 0 111 0 0 110 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 508 744 181 140 111 115 160 159 311 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.53 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 20% 10% 20% 3% 6% 5 % 5 % 5% 5 % 17% 17 % 17% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.2 61.5 61.5 18.5 55.8 55.8 17.5 17.5 39.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 24.2 61.5 61.5 18.5 55.8 55.8 17.5 17.5 36.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.56 0.56 0.17 0.51 0.51 0.16 0.16 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 642 1698 668 572 1728 771 260 264 886 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.24 0.04 0.03 c0.10 0.10 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.44 0.27 0.24 0.06 0.15 0.62 0.60 0.35 Progression Factor 0.90 0.61 0.56 0.78 0.76 1.23 0.71 0.71 0.76 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.9 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.5 2.2 0.1 Delay (s) 42.4 9.3 8.0 30.9 10.6 18.2 33.0 32.6 21.4 Level of Service D A A C B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 19.7 20.2 26.3 0.0 Approach 'LOS B C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 --r ) r Lane Configurations )y r 0.96 9 0.96 0.96 0.96 rr Volume (vph) 671 45 12 51 1 3 3 64 482 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1,00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3340 1382 1719 1568 1677 1805 1719 2409 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 699 47 12 53 1 3 3 67 502 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 28 0 0 3 0 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 703 14 12 53 1 0 3 67 370 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 18% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 18.8 1.0 21.7 1.0 1.0 21.7 40.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 18.8 18.8 1.0 21.7 1.0 1.0 21.7 40.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.74 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1142 472 31 619 30 33 678 1774 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.01 0.03 c0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.03 0.39 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 12.0 26.7 10.4 26.5 26.6 10.5 2.3' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.39 3.89 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 15.8 12.0 29.6 10.7 26.7 23.5 14.9 8.8 Level of Service B B C B C C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.6 14.2 26.7 9.6 Approach 'LOS B B C A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Future 101 NB Ramp /Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4- Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.99 0.99 r rr r Volume (vph) 0 758 296 58 315 152 0 104 926 355' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 11 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 5% 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected Prot 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4692 1770 4940 3129 1564 1514 3864 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 766 299 59 318 154 0 105 935 359' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1065 0 59 318 103 51 11 935 359' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Average Control Delay 6 HCM Level of Service C 4 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 6% 4% 2% 5% 5% 0% 3% 3 % 4% Turn Type' Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot 81.4% Split Perm 'custom custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 c Critical Lane Group 3 3 Permitted' Phases' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 39.7 6.1 93.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 39.9 39.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 39.7 6.1 90.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 39.9 39.9'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.06 0.82 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.36 0.36 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5'' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1693 98 4051 236 118 114 1402 563' v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 c0.03 0.06 c0.03 0.03 c0.24 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.60 0.08 0.44 0.43 0.09 0.67 0.64 Progression Factor 0.84 1.02 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.7 6.9 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.9 1.7' Delay (s) 26.1 58.6 0.4 49.1 49.5 47.5 30.4 30.8 Level of Service C E A D D D C' C Approach Delay (s) 26.1 9.5 48.5 Approach 'LOS C A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 1307 228 25 244 64 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1,00 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 3226 1656 3312 1624 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 3226 1656 3312 1624 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1376 240 26 257 67 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 8 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1608 0 26 257 75 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 69.4 14.6 73.0 13.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 69.4 14.6 73.0 13.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.13 0.66 0.12 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2035 220 2198 199 v/s Ratio Prot c0.50 c0.02 0.08 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.79 0.12 0.12 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 14.9 42.0 6.7 44.4 Progression Factor 0.58 1.37 0.43 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 Delay (s) 11.4 57.5 2.9 44.8 Level of Service B E A D Approach Delay (s) 11.4 8.0 44.8 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.94 + r 0.94 t 0.94 0.94 0.94 Volume (vph) 3 548 669 11 134 0 120 3 18 0 0 1' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1743 1453 1656 3312 1656 1498 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 583 712 12 143 0 128 3 19 0 0 1' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 185 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 583 527 12 143 0 128 6 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 9.3 81.4 81.4 1.4 73.5 15.2 15.2 15.2 Effective Green, g,(s) 9.3 81.4 81.4 1.4 73.5 15.2 15.2 15.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.74 0.74 0.01 0.67 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 1290 1075 21 2213 182 207 208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.33 c0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.45 0.49 0.57 0.06 0.70 0.03 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 46.2 5.6 5.8 54.0 6.3 45.2 41.0 40.9 Progression Factor 0.88 1.14 7.34 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.0 1.1 1.5 21.2 0.1 9.6 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 40.6 7.5 44.3 75.4 6.2 54.9 41.0 40.9 Level of Service D A D E A D D D Approach Delay (s) 27.8 11.5 52.8 40.9 Approach 'LOS C B D D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.95 + r 0.95 tt r 0.95 + r Volume (vph) 233 178 86 183 103 67 35 337 162 354 471 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.93' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1599 1313 2717 1660 1386 1577 3154 1384' 1232 2878 1293 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 245 187 91 193 108 71 37 355 171 373' 496 107 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 432 28 193 108 8 37 355 171 283' 586 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C 45 D Intersection Summary 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 HCM Average Control Delay 3 40.8 HCM Level of Service 1 D 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 16% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 5 % 20% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split Sum of lost time (s) Perm Split 16.0 Perm Split pt+ov' Split 71.7% Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 Analysis Period (min) 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 30.3 30.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 15.9 15.9 27.0 26.7 26.7 26.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 30.3 30.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 15.9 15.9 27.0 26.7' 26.7 26.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 484 398 302 184 154 251 501 374' 329' 768 345 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.07 0.07 0.02 c0.11 0.12 c0.23 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.02' v/c Ratio 0.89 0.07 0.64 0.59 0.05 0.15 0.71 0.46 0.86 0.76 0.08 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.54 0.32 1.17 1.17 1.00 0.92 0.93 1.02 Incremental Delay,' d2 18.4 0.1 4.4 4.7 0.1 0.2 3.9 0.6 22.2' 6.4 0.4 Delay (s) 51.7 24.9 28.6 27.3 12.9 42.5 50.5 31.0 54.5 37.6 28.5 Level of Service D C C C B D D C' D D C Approach Delay (s) 47.0 25.2 44.1 41.5 Approach 'LOS D C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 109 423 128 1 35 114 0 0 395 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1689 3488 3356 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1689 3488 3356 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 120 465 141 1 38 125 0 0 434 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 120 302 305 0 0 163 0 0 481 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0 % 3% 0 % 0% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 54.3 54.3 14.0 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 54.3 54.3 14.0 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.20 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 219 887 917 488 661 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.18 0.18 0.05 c0 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 12.8 12.7 38.8 37.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.5 1.0 1.0 0.4 4.0 Delay (s) 43.5 13.9 13.7 32.0 41.6 Level of Service D B B C D Approach Delay (s) 43.5 13.8 32.0 41.6 Approach 'LOS D B C D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.99 4+ r 0.99 + r 0.99 0 0.99 tt r Volume (vph) 50 173 106 276 212 177 180 42 334 142 657 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1392 3248 1468 1416 3158 1568 1752 2654 1719 3312 1540 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 175 107 279 214 179 182 42 337 143' 664 51' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 96 0 0 148 0 312 0 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 180 11 162 331 31 182 67 0 143' 664 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D D 7 Intersection Summary 3 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 HCM Average Control Delay 4 36.6 HCM Level of Service 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 6% 10% 16% 3% 3 % 3 % 7% 17 % 5% 9 % 3% Turn Type' Split 100.0 Prot Split Prot Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 15 5 2 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 9.9 9.9 17.1 17.1 17.1 14.6 7.3 49.7 42.4 42.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 9.9 9.9 9.9 17.1 17.1 17.1 14.6 7.3 49.7' 42.4 42.4' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.50 0.42 0.42 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 322 145 242 540 268 256 194 854 1404 653 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.06 0.01 c0.11 0.10 0.02 c0.10 0.03 0.08 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.33 0.56 0.07 0.67 0.61 0.11 0.71 0.34 0.17 0.47 0.03 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.06 2.27 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.77 0.76 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 1.2 0.1 5.2 1.4 0.1 7.5 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.1' Delay (s) 42.5 44.2 41.0 46.6 42.2 79.5 48.2 44.5 8.3 17.0 12.8 Level of Service D D D D D E D D A B B Approach Delay (s) 42.9 53.2 45.7 15.3 Approach 'LOS D D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 1� r 0.98 0.98 0.98 0 0.98 t r Volume (vph) 78 181 390 24 105 7 423 341 344 6 129 137 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 1620 1443 1556 1825 3335 3060 1583 1792 1483 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 80 185 398 24 107 7 432 348 351 6 132 140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 23 217 0 2 0 0 143 0 0 0 124 Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 281 62 24 112 0 432 556 0 6 132 16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 B 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 33.8 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 10% 4% 4% 16% 3% 3 % 5 % 5% 10 % 14% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Prot 100.0 Perm Prot 12.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 B 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 22.4 22.4 3.0 17.2 46.9 46.9 11.7 11.7 11.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.2 22.4 22.4 3.0 17.2 46.9 46.9 11.7' 11.7 11.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 363 323 47 314 1564 1435 185' 210 174 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.17 0.02 c0.06 0.13 c0.18 0.00 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.19 0.51 0.36 0.28 0.39 0.03 0.63 0.09 Progression Factor 1.02 1.00 1.95 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.78 1.15 1.07 2.13 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.3 8.6 0.1 3.8 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.0' 4.1 0.1' Delay (s) 49.6 44.8 61.4 51.6 36.8 14.2 14.0 44.9 49.3 83.9 Level of Service D D E D D B B D D F Approach Delay (s) 52.4 39.3 14.1 66.6 Approach 'LOS D D B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.99 t 0.99 tt r )y r Volume (vph) 18 11 11 154 251 15 35 392 104 815' 26 378 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1631 1396 1597 3154 1597 3195 1391 3077 1279 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 11 11 156 254 15 35 396 105 823 26 382 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 70 3 0 212 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 29 0 156 266 0 35 396 35 884 0 132 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot C Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 4.4 15.1 44.3 4.8 33.5 33.5 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.4 4.4 15.1 44.3 4.8 33.5 33.5 33.0'' 33.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.44 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 72 61 241 1397 77 1070 466 1015' 422 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.10 0.08 0.02 c0.12 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.01 0.65 0.19 0.45 0.37 0.08 0.87 0.31 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.35 1.07 1.10 1.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.3 0.0 5.5 0.3 1.4 0.9 0.3 8.0' 0.2' Delay (s) 47.9 45.7 34.7 6.2 50.7 28.5 42.4 39.5 25.2 Level of Service D D C A D C D' D C Approach Delay (s) 47.3 16.7 32.7 35.5 Approach 'LOS D B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + Volume (vph) 21 1 18 222 1 99 24 300 553 437 327 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1605 1389 1517 1522 1383 1597 3195 1343 1597 3157 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1 19 229 1 102 25 309 570 451' 337 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 0 90 0 0 471 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 1 114 116 12 25 309 99 451' 359 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) A Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split D Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 3.6 12.2 12.2 12.2 3.1 17.3 17.3 50.9 65.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 3.6 3.6 12.2 12.2 12.2 3.1 17.3 17.3 50.9' 65.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.51 0.65 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 58 50 185 186 169 50 553 232 813' 2055 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.08 c0.08 0.02 c0.10 c0.28 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.07 0.50 0.56 0.43 0.55 0.17 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.70 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.6 0.0 4.2 4.6 0.1 2.8 0.7 0.5 2.5' 0.2 Delay (s) 48.8 46.5 45.9 46.3 39.0 50.5 38.6 37.4 12.9 5.0 Level of Service D D D D D D D D' B A Approach Delay (s) 47.7 43.9 38.1 9.4 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 37 657 497 35 64 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 4940 4676 1719 1487 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 4940 4676 1719 1487 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 684 518 36 67 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 684 551 0 67 1 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.8 84.6 75.8 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.8 84.6 75.8 7.4 7.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.85 0.76 0.07 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 4179 3544 127 110 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.14 0.12 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.16 0.16 0.53 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 1.4 3.3 44.6 42.9 Progression Factor 0.95 2.01 0.60 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.0 Delay (s) 45.0 2.8 2.1 46.4 42.9 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 5.1 2.1 45.6 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt r Volume (vph) 699 22 12 308 224 800 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4902 1719 4715 1641 1503 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4902 1719 4715 1641 1503 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 706 22 12 311 226 808 RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 0 109 Lane Group Flow (vph) 724 0 12 311 226 699 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 10% 10% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.8 1.3 31.1 60.9 60.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 25.8 1.3 31.1 60.9 60.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.01 0.31 0.61 0.61 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1265 22 1466 999 915 v/s Ratio Prot c0 c0.01 0.07 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.46 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.55 0.21 0.23 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 49.1 25.4 8.9 14.3 Progression Factor 0.75 0.46 0.56 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.9 13.8 0.3 0.0 3.4 Delay (s) 26.1 36.6 14.5 8.9 17.7 Level of Service C D B A B Approach Delay (s) 26.1 15.3 15.8 Approach 'LOS C B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.98 0 0.98 t Volume (vph) 162 1276 61 55 268 56 47 71 288 255 111 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 4898 1719 4616 1641 2938 1719 3461 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 1302 62 56 273 57 48 72 294 260 113 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 41 0 0 215 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 1360 0 56 289 0 48 151 0 260 115 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D Intersection Summary 18 3 13 HCM Average Control Delay 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 23.8 HCM Level of Service 8 C 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4' 0.61 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5 % 10 % 4% 5 % 5% 3 % 5% Turn Type' Prot 73.3% ICU Level of Service Prot D Prot Analysis Period (min) Prot 15 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 35.6 45.1 6.6 16.1 15.6 9.6 22.7 16.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 35.6 45.1 6.6 16.1 15.6 9.6 22.7' 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.45 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 61!2 2209 113 743 256 282 390' 578 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.28 c0.03 0.06 0.03 c0.05 c0.15 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.27 0.62 0.50 0.39 0.19 0.53 0.67 0.20 Progression Factor 0.73 0.71 0.84 0.73 0.92 0.76 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 0.1 0.9 3.3' 0.1 Delay (s) 16.8 15.9 39.2 29.1 34.0 33.7 38.5 36.0 Level of Service B B D C C C D D Approach Delay (s) 16.0 30.5 33.8 37.7 Approach 'LOS B C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.95 0 0.95 t 0.95 0.95 r 0.95 0.95 r Volume (vph) 565 1095 155 20 217 12 59 84 99 22 51 97 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2968 2988 1530 3032 1453 1525 1335 1530 1440 1268 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 595 1153 163 21 228 13 62 88 104 23 55 102 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 93 0 21 68 Lane Group Flow (vph) 595 1310 0 21 237 0 56 94 11 23' 62 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 38.9 5 B 1 C 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 100.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 62.2% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.3 63.1 2.4 28.2 10.6 10.6 10.6 7.9 7.9 7.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 37.3 63.1 2.4 28.2 10.6 10.6 10.6 7.9' 7.9 7.9' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.63 0.02 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1107 1885 37 855 154 162 142 121' 114 100 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.44 c0.01 0.08 0.04 c0.06 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.70 0.57 0.28 0.36 0.58 0.08 0.19 0.54 0.06 Progression Factor 0.57 0.75 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.75 1.02 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 1.8 11.3 0.8 0.5 3.4 0.1 0.3' 2.8 0.1' Delay (s) 14.4 10.9 56.9 28.0 42.1 46.0 40.4 34.6 36.0 43.5 Level of Service B B E C D D D' C D DD Approach Delay (s) 12.0 30.3 42.8 38.9 Approach 'LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 0.98 t 0.98 0.98 0.98 Volume (vph) 3 1079 58 51 192 1 39 0 398 0 0 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1530 3032 1530 3057 1530 1350 1374 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1101 59 52 196 1 40 0 406 0 0 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 248 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1154 0 52 197 0 40 158 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 25.3 3.2 27.5 9.0 9.0 9.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 1.0 25.3 3.2 27.5 9.0 9.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.51 0.06 0.55 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 1534 98 1681 219 243 247 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.38 c0.03 0.06 c0.12 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.75 0.53 0.12 0.18 0.65 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 9.8 22.7 5.4 17.4 19.0 16.8 Progression Factor 1.03 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 2.7 2.7 0.1 0.1 4.4 0.0 Delay (s) 25.1 12.9 25.4 5.6 17.5 23.4 16.8 Level of Service C B C A B C B Approach Delay (s) 13.0 9.7 22.9 16.8 Approach 'LOS B A C B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 121: Forbes Blvd. & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 76 tt 0 973 870 r Volume (vph) 47 374 146 94 497 183 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 24.2 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.3 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 9.8 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3332 A 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3332 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 407 159 102 540 199 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 51 407 177 0 540 109 Turn Type Prot Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.2 15.1 8.9 28.2 28.2 Effective Green, g (s) 2.2 15.1 8.9 28.2 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.29 0,17 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76 1042 578 973 870 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.11 0.05 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.39 0.31 0.55 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 24.2 14.4 18.5 7.5 5.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.8 0.2 0.3 2.3 0.3 Delay (s) 45.0 14.7 18.8 9.8 5.9 Level of Service D B B A A Approach 'Delay (s) 18.1 18.8 8.7 Approach LOS B B A HCM Average Control Delay 13.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 122: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.92 0 0.92 t 0.92 0.92 r Volume (vph) 102 616 3 1 179 37 0 0 1 68 1 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.99 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3449 1611 1676 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 111 670 3 1 195 40 0 0 1 74 1 53' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 0 3 33 Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 672 0 1 208 0 0 0 0 0 77 15 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G' (s) 6.0 18.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0' Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 18.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 1273 142 1104 516 440 481' v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.19 0.00 c0.06 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01;', v/c Ratio 0.52 0.53 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.17 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 12.6 21.2 12.3 11.6 12.2 11..7 Progression Factor 0.95 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 8.2 1.4 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.1' Delay (s) 27.9 13.3 21.3 12.7 11.6 13.1 11.8 Level of Service C B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 15.4 12.7 11.6 12.6 Approach 'LOS B B B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 294 tt 0 126 r Volume (veh /h) 273 1149 176 6 0 66 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 6 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 294 1235 189 6 0 71 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 533 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 196 1397 98 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 192 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1205 vCu, unblocked vol 196 1044 98 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 79 100 92 cM capacity (veh /h) 1375 248 939 Volume Total 294 618 618 126 70 71 Volume Left 294 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 6 71 cSH 1375 1700 1700 1700 1700 939 Queue Length 95th (ft) 20 0 0 0 0 6 Control Delay (s) 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 Lane LOS A A Approach 'Delay (s) 1.6 0.0 9.1 Approach LOS A Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.1% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 324 234 93 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 26 440 72 134 153 7 63 10 84 5 8 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90' Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 489 80 149 170 8 70 11 93 6 9 11 Volume Total (vph) 273 324 234 93 174 26 Volume Left (vph) 29 0 149 0 70 6 Volume Right (vph) 0 80 0 8 93 11 Hadj (s) 0.09 -0.14 0,35 -0.02 - ,0.21 - -0.18 Departure Headway (s) 5.6 5.4 6.2 5.8 5.7 6.2 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.43 0.49 0,40 0.15 0.28 0.04 Capacity (veh /h) 616 651 561 593 581 509 Control Delay (s) 11.6 12.2 12.1 8.6 10.9 9.4 Approach Delay (s) 11.9 11.1 10.9 9.4 Approach 'LOS B B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 204 3 228 0 14 594 433 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3339 3469 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3339 3469 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 217 3 243 0 15 632 461 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 219 0 255 0 0 632 461 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 3% 0% 3% 5% 5% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 37.8 49.2 90.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 12.5 37.8 49.2 90.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.34 0.45 0.82 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 379 1192 769 2813 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.07 c0.37 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.58 0.21 0.82 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 46.2 25.6 26.6 2.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.1 0.4 7.1 0.1 Delay (s) 48.4 27.5 33.6 2.2 Level of Service D C C A Approach Delay (s) 48.4 27.5 20.4 0.0 Approach 'LOS D C C A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.95 t 0.95 t rr 0.95 tt r Volume (vph) 101 997 27 162 177 42 27 99 281 258 204 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 4501 2993 3264 1752 1845 2707 2918 3438 1510 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 106 1049 28 171 186 44 28 104 296 272' 215 185 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 25 0 0 0 101 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow (vph) 106 1075 0 171 205 0 28 104 195 272' 215 40 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 26.1 3 B C D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 15% 5% 17% 8% 5% 3 % 3% 5 % 20% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 110.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 52.9 53.5 10.7 11.3 4.3 11.6 22.3 16.2 23.5 23.5 Effective Green, g (s) 52.9 53.5 10.7 11.3 4.3 11.6 22.3 16.2' 23.5 23.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.49 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 851 2189 291 335 68 195 549 430' 734 323 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.24 0.06 c0.06 0.02 c0.06 0.07 c0.09 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.59 0.61 0.41 0.53 0.35 0.63 0.29 0.12 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.73 0.30 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.3 0.8 1.9 2.3 1.5 1.4 0.1 2.2' 0.1 0.1' Delay (s) 16.1 19.9 27.6 25.6 53.1 48.0 37.8 36.6 26.4 10.5 Level of Service B B C C D D D' D C B Approach Delay (s) 19.5 26.4 41.3 26.1 Approach 'LOS B C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 r 0.98 tt r 0.98 0.98 rr Volume (vph) 498 626 412 137 107 201 274 38 413 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2918 3031 1195 3400 3406 1519 1633 1657 2707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 508 639 420 140 109 205 280 39 421 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 141 0 0 101 0 0 116 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 508 733 178 140 109 104 160 159 305 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.53 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 20% 10% 20% 3% 6% 5 % 5 % 5% 5 % 17% 17 % 17% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.2 61.5 61.5 18.5 55.8 55.8 17.5 17.5 39.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 24.2 61.5 61.5 18.5 55.8 55.8 17.5 17.5 36.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.56 0.56 0.17 0.51 0.51 0.16 0.16 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 642 1695 668 572 1728 771 260 264 886 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.24 0.04 0.03 c0.10 0.10 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.43 0.27 0.24 0.06 0.13 0.62 0.60 0.34 Progression Factor 0.88 0.61 0.56 0.76 0.74 1.10 0.71 0.71 0.78 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.9 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.4 2.5 2.2 0.1 Delay (s) 41.6 9.3 8.0 30.3 10.2 16.1 33.0 32.6 22.0 Level of Service D A A C B B C C C Approach Delay (s) 19.5 19.1 26.7 0.0 Approach 'LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 --r ) r Lane Configurations )y r 0.96 9 0.96 0.96 0.96 rr Volume (vph) 671 45 12 51 1 3 3 64 482 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1,00 0.85 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3340 1382 1719 1568 1677 1805 1719 2409 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 699 47 12 53 1 3 3 67 502 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 28 0 0 3 0 0 0 132 Lane Group Flow (vph) 703 14 12 53 1 0 3 67 370 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 18% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.8 18.8 1.0 21.7 1.0 1.0 21.7 40.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 18.8 18.8 1.0 21.7 1.0 1.0 21.7 40.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.74 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1142 472 31 619 30 33 678 1774 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.01 0.03 c0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.03 0.39 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 15.1 12.0 26.7 10.4 26.5 26.6 10.5 2.3' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.40 3.80 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.0 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 Delay (s) 15.8 12.0 29.6 10.7 26.7 23.5 14.9 8.6 Level of Service B B C B C C B A Approach Delay (s) 15.6 14.2 26.7 9.4 Approach 'LOS B B C A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Future 101 NB Ramp /Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4- Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.99 0.99 r rr r Volume (vph) 0 743 296 58 302 152 0 104 894 355' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 10 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 5% 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected Prot 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4689 1770 4940 3129 1564 1514 3864' 1553 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 751 299 59 305 154 0 105 903 359' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1050 0 59 305 103 51 10 903 359' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Average Control Delay 6 HCM Level of Service C 4 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 6% 4% 2% 5% 5% 0% 3% 3 % 4% Turn Type' Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot 80.0% Split Perm 'custom custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 4 4 c Critical Lane Group 3 3 Permitted' Phases' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.7 6.1 93.7 8.3 8.3 8.3 38.9 38.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 40.7 6.1 90.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 38.9 38.9'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.06 0.82 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.35 0.35 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5'' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1735 98 4051 236 118 114 1366 549' v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.03 0.06 c0.03 0.03 c0.23 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.60 0.08 0.44 0.43 0.09 0.66 0.65 Progression Factor 0.84 1.04 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.5 6.9 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.9 2.1' Delay (s) 25.1 59.6 0.4 49.1 49.5 47.4 30.9 32.0 Level of Service C E A D D D C' C Approach Delay (s) 25.1 10.0 48.5 Approach 'LOS C B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 1269 198 25 242 53 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1,00 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 3235 1656 3312 1618 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 3235 1656 3312 1618 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 1357 208 26 255 56 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 7 0 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1558 0 26 255 62 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 70.5 14.6 74.1 12.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 70.5 14.6 74.1 12.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.13 0.67 0.11 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2073 220 2231 182 v/s Ratio Prot c0.48 c0.02 0.08 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.75 0.12 0.11 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 13.7 42.0 6.3 45.0 Progression Factor 0.58 1.35 0.25 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 Delay (s) 10.2 57.0 1.6 45.5 Level of Service B E A D Approach Delay (s) 10.2 6.7 45.5 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5' Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.94 + r 0.94 t 0.94 0.94 0.94 Volume (vph) 3 548 631 11 134 0 118 3 18 0 0 1' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1743 1453 1656 3312 1656 1498 1508 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 583 671 12 143 0 126 3 19 0 0 1' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 173 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 583 498 12 143 0 126 6 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 4 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 81.6 81.6 1.4 73.9 15.0 15.0 15.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 9.1 81.6 81.6 1.4 73.9 15.0 15.0 15.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.74 0.74 0.01 0.67 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 1293 1078 21 2225 180 204 206 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.33 c0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.45 0.46 0.57 0.06 0.70 0.03 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 5.5 5.6 54.0 6.2 45.4 41.2 41.0 Progression Factor 0.89 1.14 7.02 1.02 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.0 1.1 1.3 21.2 0.1 9.2 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 41.4 7.3 40.5 76.2 6.0 54.6 41.2 41.0 Level of Service D A D E A D D D Approach Delay (s) 25.1 11.5 52.6 41.0 Approach 'LOS C B D D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.95 + r 0.95 tt r 0.95 + r Volume (vph) 233 174 86 183 102 67 35 337 161 332 471 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.93' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1598 1313 2717 1660 1386 1577 3154 1384' 1232 2889 1293 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 245 183 91 193 107 71 37 355 169 349' 496 107 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 63 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 428 28 193 107 8 37 355 169 272' 573 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C 45 D Intersection Summary 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 HCM Average Control Delay 3 40.2 HCM Level of Service 1 D 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 16% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 5 % 20% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split Sum of lost time (s) Perm Split 16.0 Perm Split pt+ov' Split 70.9% Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 Analysis Period (min) 6 6 67 2 2 Permitted' Phases 8 7 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 30.3 30.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 15.9 15.9 27.0 26.7 26.7 26.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 30.3 30.3 11.1 11.1 11.1 15.9 15.9 27.0 26.7' 26.7 26.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 484 398 302 184 154 251 501 374' 329' 771 345 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 c0.07 0.06 0.02 c0.11 0.12 c0.22 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.02' v/c Ratio 0.88 0.07 0.64 0.58 0.05 0.15 0.71 0.45 0.83 0.74 0.08 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.64 0.60 0.43 1.17 1.16 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.99 Incremental Delay,' d2 17.2 0.1 4.4 4.6 0.1 0.2 3.9 0.6 18.8' 5.8 0.4 Delay (s) 50.4 24.9 31.7 30.0 17.1 42.6 50.3 30.8 50.4 36.5 27.7 Level of Service D C C C B D D C' D D C Approach Delay (s) 45.9 28.4 43.9 39.5 Approach 'LOS D C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 108 403 128 1 35 114 0 0 394 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1690 3488 3356 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1690 3488 3356 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 119 443 141 1 38 125 0 0 433 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 119 288 297 0 0 163 0 0 480 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0 % 3% 0 % 0% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.9 54.5 54.5 13.9 19.6 Effective Green, g (s) 13.9 54.5 54.5 13.9 19.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.54 0.54 0.14 0.20 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 890 921 485 658 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.18 0.18 0.05 c0 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.55 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.73 Uniform Delay, d1 40.1 12.6 12.6 38.9 37.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.5 1.0 0.9 0.4 4.0 Delay (s) 43.6 13.5 13.5 31.5 41.7 Level of Service D B B C D Approach Delay (s) 43.6 13.5 31.5 41.7 Approach 'LOS D B C D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.99 4+ r 0.99 + r 0.99 0 0.99 tt r Volume (vph) 50 172 106 263 212 177 180 42 334 142 657 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1392 3247 1468 1416 3167 1568 1752 2654 1719 3312 1540 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 51 174 107 266 214 179 182 42 337 143' 664 51' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 96 0 0 149 0 312 0 0 0 29 Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 179 11 157 323 30 182 67 0 143' 664 22 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D D 7 Intersection Summary 3 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 HCM Average Control Delay 4 36.8 HCM Level of Service 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 6% 10% 16% 3% 3 % 3 % 7% 17 % 5% 9 % 3% Turn Type' Split 100.0 Prot Split Prot Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 15 5 2 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 9.9 9.9 9.9 16.8 16.8 16.8 14.6 7.3 50.0 42.7 42.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 9.9 9.9 9.9 16.8 16.8 16.8 14.6 7.3 50.0' 42.7 42.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.07 0.50 0.43 0.43 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 321 145 238 532 263 256 194 860' 1414 658 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.06 0.01 c0.11 0.10 0.02 c0.10 0.03 0.08 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.33 0.56 0.07 0.66 0.61 0.11 0.71 0.34 0.17 0.47 0.03 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.07 2.32 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.76 0.74 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 1.2 0.1 4.9 1.3 0.1 7.5 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.1' Delay (s) 42.5 44.2 41.0 46.8 42.7 82.1 48.2 44.5 8.2 16.7 12.5 Level of Service D D D D D F D D A B B Approach Delay (s) 42.9 54.4 45.7 15.0 Approach 'LOS D D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 1� r 0.98 0.98 0.98 0 0.98 t r Volume (vph) 78 180 390 24 95 7 423 319 332 6 129 134 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1641 1620 1443 1556 1823 3335 3055 1583 1792 1483 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 80 184 398 24 97 7 432 326 339 6 132 137 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 217 0 2 0 0 147 0 0 0 121 Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 279 62 24 102 0 432 518 0 6 132 16 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 3 8 3 HCM Average Control Delay 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 34.3 HCM Level of Service 5 C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 10% 4% 4% 16% 3% 3 % 5 % 5% 10 % 14% 6 % 6% Turn Type' Prot 54.6% Perm Prot A Split Analysis Period (min) Split 15 Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 22.4 22.4 3.0 17.2 46.9 46.9 11.7 11.7 11.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.2 22.4 22.4 3.0 17.2 46.9 46.9 11.7' 11.7 11.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.12 0.12 0.12 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 363 323 47 314 1564 1433 185' 210 174 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.17 0.02 c0.06 0.13 c0.17 0.00 c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.59 0.77 0.19 0.51 0.32 0.28 0.36 0.03 0.63 0.09 Progression Factor 1.04 1.02 1.98 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.86 1.11 1.05 2.02 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.3 8.1 0.1 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.0' 4.1 0.1' Delay (s) 50.3 45.2 62.3 51.6 36.5 15.0 15.1 43.5 48.3 79.6 Level of Service D D E D D B B D D E Approach Delay (s) 53.0 39.3 15.0 63.8 Approach 'LOS D D B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.99 t 0.99 tt r )y r Volume (vph) 18 11 11 154 249 15 35 392 104 803 26 366 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1631 1396 1597 3153 1597 3195 1391 3077 1279 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 18 11 11 156 252 15 35 396 105 811' 26 370 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 69 3 0 208 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 29 0 156 264 0 35 396 36 871' 0 125 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot C Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 4.4 15.1 44.7 4.8 33.9 33.9 32.6 32.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.4 4.4 15.1 44.7 4.8 33.9 33.9 32.6' 32.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.45 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 72 61 241 1409 77 1083 472 1003' 417 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.10 0.08 0.02 c0.12 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.01 0.65 0.19 0.45 0.37 0.08 0.87 0.30 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.35 1.08 1.07 1.77 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.3 0.0 5.5 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.3 7.8' 0.1' Delay (s) 47.9 45.7 35.5 6.1 51.3 27.5 39.9 39.5 25.3 Level of Service D D D A D C D' D C Approach Delay (s) 47.3 16.9 31.5 35.6 Approach 'LOS D B C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + Volume (vph) 21 1 18 219 1 99 24 298 541 425 327 24 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1605 1389 1517 1522 1383 1597 3195 1343 1597 3157 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 1 19 226 1 102 25 307 558 438' 337 25 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0 0 90 0 0 463 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 23 1 113 114 12 25 307 95 438' 359 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) A Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split D Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 3.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 3.1 17.1 17.1 51.2 65.2 Effective Green, g,(s) 3.6 3.6 12.1 12.1 12.1 3.1 17.1 17.1 51.2' 65.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.51 0.65 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 58 50 184 184 167 50 546 230 818' 2058 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.07 c0.07 0.02 c0.10 c0.27 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.01 0.61 0.62 0.07 0.50 0.56 0.41 0.54 0.17 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.69 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.6 0.0 4.2 4.3 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.4' 2.3' 0.2 Delay (s) 48.8 46.5 46.0 46.1 39.0 50.5 38.8 37.4 12.4 4.9 Level of Service D D D D D D D D' B A Approach Delay (s) 47.7 43.9 38.3 9.0 Approach 'LOS D D D A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 37 630 495 35 64 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 4940 4676 1719 1487 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 4940 4676 1719 1487 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 656 516 36 67 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 19 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 656 549 0 67 1 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 10% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.8 84.6 75.8 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.8 84.6 75.8 7.4 7.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.85 0.76 0.07 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 83 4179 3544 127 110 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.13 0.12 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.16 0.16 0.53 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 1.4 3.3 44.6 42.9 Progression Factor 0.95 1.94 0.57 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.0 Delay (s) 45.2 2.7 2.0 46.4 42.9 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 5.1 2.0 45.6 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt r Volume (vph) 672 22 12 306 224 764 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4901 1719 4715 1641 1503 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4901 1719 4715 1641 1503 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 679 22 12 309 226 772 RTOR Reduction (vph) 5 0 0 0 0 121 Lane Group Flow (vph) 696 0 12 309 226 651 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 10% 10% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.5 1.3 33.8 58.2 58.2 Effective Green, g (s) 28.5 1.3 33.8 58.2 58.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.01 0.34 0.58 0.58 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1397 22 1594 955 875 v/s Ratio Prot c0 c0.01 0.07 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.55 0.19 0.24 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 29.8 49.1 23.4 10.1 15.4 Progression Factor 0.76 0.63 0.49 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.3 13.8 0.3 0.0 3.0 Delay (s) 23.8 44.7 11.7 10.2 18.4 Level of Service C D B B B Approach Delay (s) 23.8 12.9 16.6 Approach 'LOS C B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.98 0 0.98 t Volume (vph) 162 1213 61 52 266 56 47 71 286 255 111 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 4896 1719 4615 1641 2938 1719 3461 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 1238 62 53 271 57 48 72 292 260 113 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 42 0 0 216 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 1296 0 53 286 0 48 148 0 260 115 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D Intersection Summary 18 3 13 HCM Average Control Delay 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 24.9 HCM Level of Service 8 C 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4' 0.59 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 10% 5 % 10 % 4% 5 % 5% 3 % 5% Turn Type' Prot 72.0% ICU Level of Service Prot C Prot Analysis Period (min) Prot 15 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 35.6 45.2 6.5 16.1 15.6 9.5 22.8 16.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 35.6 45.2 6.5 16.1 15.6 9.5 22.8' 16.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.45 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 61!2 2213 112 743 256 279 392' 578 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.26 c0.03 0.06 0.03 c0.05 c0.15 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.27 0.59 0.47 0.38 0.19 0.53 0.66 0.20 Progression Factor 0.77 0.76 0.87 0.78 0.94 0.82 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.1 0.8 3.3' 0.1 Delay (s) 17.8 16.5 40.5 30.8 34.6 36.0 38.4 36.0 Level of Service B B D C C D D D Approach Delay (s) 16.7 32.1 35.8 37.6 Approach 'LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.95 0 0.95 t 0.95 0.95 r 0.95 0.95 r Volume (vph) 515 1080 155 15 214 12 59 74 94 22 45 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2968 2988 1530 3032 1453 1524 1335 1530 1431 1268 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 542 1137 163 16 225 13 62 78 99 23 49 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 89 0 25 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 542 1294 0 16 234 0 56 84 10 23' 53 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 38.0 5 B 1 C 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 100.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 61.6% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 64.2 2.4 31.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 34.8 64.2 2.4 31.8 10.0 10.0 10.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.64 0.02 0.32 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1033 1918 37 964 145 152 134' 113' 106 94 v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.43 0.01 c0.08 0.04 c0.06 0.02 c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.67 0.43 0.24 0.39 0.55 0.07 0.20 0.50 0.06 Progression Factor 0.61 0.75 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.73 1.01 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 1.6 2.9 0.6 0.6 2.5 0.1 0.3' 1.3 0.1' Delay (s) 16.3 10.1 48.9 25.3 42.8 45.3 40.9 34.9 34.0 43.5 Level of Service B B D C D D D' C C DD Approach Delay (s) 12.0 26.8 42.9 38.0 Approach 'LOS B C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 0.98 t 0.98 0.98 0.98 Volume (vph) 3 1059 58 47 184 1 39 0 375 0 0 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1530 3031 1530 3057 1530 1350 1374 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 3 1081 59 48 188 1 40 0 383 0 0 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 252 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 3 1134 0 48 189 0 40 131 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 25.8 3.2 28.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 25.8 3.2 28.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.52 0.06 0.56 0.17 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 1564 98 1712 207 230 234 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.37 c0.03 0.06 c0.10 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.72 0.49 0.11 0.19 0.57 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 9.4 22.6 5.2 17.8 19.1 17.2 Progression Factor 1.04 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 2.4 1.4 0.1 0.2 1.9 0.0 Delay (s) 25.5 12.2 24.0 5.3 18.0 21.0 17.2 Level of Service C B C A B C B Approach Delay (s) 12.2 9.1 20.7 17.2 Approach 'LOS B A C B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 121: Forbes Blvd. & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 49 tt 0 979 875 r Volume (vph) 45 374 145 94 497 165 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 24.8 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.3 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 9.6 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3331 A 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3331 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 407 158 102 540 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 83 0 0 80 Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 407 177 0 540 99 Turn Type Prot Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.4 14.8 9.4 28.2 28.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.4 14.8 9.4 28.2 28.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.29 0,18 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 49 1027 614 979 875 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.11 0.05 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.40 0.29 0.55 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 14.5 17.9 7.3 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 128.6 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.3 Delay (s) 153.4 14.8 18.2 9.6 5.7 Level of Service F B B A A Approach 'Delay (s) 29.7 18.2 8.6 Approach LOS C B A HCM Average Control Delay 17.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 122: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.92 0 0.92 t 0.92 0.92 r Volume (vph) 102 556 3 1 171 26 0 0 1 38 1 49 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.86 0.98 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3470 1611 1659 1504 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 111 604 3 1 186 28 0 0 1 41' 1 53' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 19 0 0 1 0 0 5 31 Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 606 0 1 195 0 0 0 0' 0 45 14 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G' (s) 6.0 18.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0' Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 18.0 4.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.36 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32' Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 212 1273 142 1110 516 461 481' v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.17 0.00 c0.06 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.03 0.01;', v/c Ratio 0.52 0.48 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 20.7 12.4 21.2 12.2 11.6 11.9 11..7 Progression Factor 0.86 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 8.3 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1' Delay (s) 26.0 11.5 21.3 12.6 11.6 12.3 11.8 Level of Service C B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 13.8 12.6 11.6 12.1 Approach 'LOS B B B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 247 tt 0 126 r Volume (veh /h) 230 1149 176 5 0 54 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 5 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly flow rate (vph) 247 1235 189 5 0 58 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 533 pX, platoon unblocked 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 195 1304 97 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 192 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 1112 vCu, unblocked vol 195 928 97 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 82 100 94 cM capacity (veh /h) 1376 296 940 Volume Total 247 618 618 126 68 58 Volume Left 247 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 5 58 cSH 1376 1700 1700 1700 1700 940 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 0 0 0 5 Control Delay (s) 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 Lane LOS A A Approach 'Delay (s) 1.4 0.0 9.1 Approach LOS A Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.1% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 324 216 89 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 26 439 72 121 147 7 63 10 83 5 8 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90' Hourly flow rate (vph) 29 488 80 134 163 8 70 11 92 6 9 11 Volume Total (vph) 273 324 216 89 173 26 Volume Left (vph) 29 0 134 0 70 6 Volume Right (vph) 0 80 0 8 92 11 Hadj (s) 0.09 -0.14 0,35 -0.03 - ,0.20 - -0.18 Departure Headway (s) 5.6 5.4 6.2 5.8 5.7 6.1 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.42 0.48 0,37 0.14 0.27 0.04 Capacity (veh /h) 621 655 562 594 587 516 Control Delay (s) 11.4 12.1 11.5 8.6 10.8 9.4 Approach Delay (s) 11.8 10.7 10.8 9.4 Approach 'LOS B B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Conditions 5:00 pm South San Francisco Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 500 12 454 0 13 734 726 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3273 3455 1687 3374 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3273 3455 1687 3374 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 515 12 468 0 13 757 748 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 525 0 479 0 0 757 748 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 7% 7% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 25.2 32.0 68.3 103.3 Effective Green, g (s) 25.2 32.0 68.3 103.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.24 0.50 0.76 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 813 847 2563 v/s Ratio Prot c0 c0.14 c0.45 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.87 0.59 0.89 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 46.2 30.6 5.1 Progression Factor 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 12.4 3.1 11.8 0.3 Delay (s) 66.2 38.0 42.4 5.3 Level of Service E D D A Approach Delay (s) 66.2 38.0 24.0 0.0 Approach 'LOS E D C A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations tt tt r r Volume (vph) 38 358 1206 20 109 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 3374 1476 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 3374 1476 3433 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 3619 1243 21 112 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 5 0 147 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 3619 1243 16 112 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 7% 7% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 118.7 106.6 106.6 8.8 8.1 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 118.7 106.6 106.6 8.8 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.06 0.06 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 3029 2645 1157 222 94 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.11 c0.37 c0.03 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.12 0.47 0.01 0.50 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 61.5 1.2 5.0 3.2 61.5 60.5 Progression Factor 1.07 1.01 0.48 0.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 66.8 1.3 2.9 0.8 62.2 60.7 Level of Service E A A A E E Approach Delay (s) 7.6 2.9 61.3 Approach 'LOS A A E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5' Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 63 313 23 287 732 205 74 128 263 445 490 422 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 4930 3303 3294 1736 1827 2733 3273 3374 1482 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 323 24 296 755 211 76 132 271 459' 505 435 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 20 0 0 0 209 0 0 228 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 342 0 296 946 0 76 132 62 459' 505 207 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 32.7 3 C D D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4 % 4% 4 % 7% 7 % 7% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 136.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 34.2 62.5 16.5 44.8 8.6 14.5 31.0 24.5 30.4 30.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 34.2 62.5 16.5 44.8 8.6 14.5 31.0 24.5' 30.4 30.4' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.46 0.12 0.33 0.06 0.11 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 2266 401 1085 110 195 623 590' 754 331 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 0.09 c0.29 0.04 c0.07 0.02 c0.14 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.87 0.69 0.68 0.10 0.78 0.67 0.62 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.64 0.47 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.1 5.4 6.8 14.0 7.1 0.0 5.3' 1.6 2.4 Delay (s) 40.3 21.5 60.7 50.4 76.4 65.6 41.5 40.8 32.3 24.7 Level of Service D C E D E E D' D C C Approach Delay (s) 24.5 52.8 53.7 32.7 Approach 'LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 202 332 487 1308 752 1684 472 113 223 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 3084 1372 3303 3406 2626 3433 1863 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 342 502 1348 775 1736 487 116 230 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 74 185 0 0 211 0 0 91 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 208 504 81 1348 775 1525 487 116 139 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.91 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 41.6 41.6 57.5 87.8 87.8 24.4 24.4 85.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.3 41.6 41.6 57.5 87.8 87.8 24.4 24.4 81.9' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.65 0.65 0.18 0.18 0.60 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 943 420 1396 2199 1695 616 334 1678' v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.16 c0.41 0.23 c0.14 0.06 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.58 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.53 0.19 0.97 0.35 0.90 0.79 0.35 0.08 Progression Factor 0.96 0.72 1.10 0.77 0.68 0.58 0.53 1.19 0.05 Incremental Delay,' d2 9.0 2.0 1.0 7.2 0.1 2.8 4.9 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 67.4 30.3 39.1 36.7 7.6 14.7 33.4 58.1 0.5 Level of Service E C D D A B C E A Approach Delay (s) 39.9 20.9 27.8 0.0 Approach 'LOS D C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 607 0 48 35 199 2 2 6 149 1640' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1549 1770 1583 1703 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 626 0 49 36 205 2 2 6 154 1691' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 138 Lane Group Flow (vph) 626 12 0 36 205 2 0 0 160 1553' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 1 1 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type' Perm custom Perm custom' Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted' Phases' 3 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.4 34.4 6.4 91.0 1.1 81.6 119.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 34.4 34.4 6.4 91.0 1.1 81.6 119.5'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.67 0.01 0.60 0.88 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 868 392 83 1059 14 1108 2449' v/s Ratio Prot c0 18 c0.02 0.13 c0.00 c0.56 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.03 0.43 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 38.3 63.0 8.6 67.0 11.9' 2.3' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.43 7.73 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.5 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.2' Delay (s) 48.9 38.3 64.4 9.0 68.7 17.1 17.7 Level of Service D D E A E B B Approach Delay (s) 48.2 17.2 68.7 17.6 Approach 'LOS D B E B' HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 75 317 163 390 2320 18 1162 50 97 10 55 262 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4740 1736 4982 3221 1624 1538 1849 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.87 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 327 168 402 2392 19 1198 52 100 10 57 270 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 69 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 495 0 402 2410 0 827 423 31 0 67 218 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 6 E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type Prot ICU Level of Service Prot F Split Analysis Period (min) Perm Perm' custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 lane as a 4 4 8 Permitted' Phases' 4' 8' 6'8' Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 14.5 28.0 68.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 14.5 28.0 65.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.11 0.21 0.48 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 505 357 2381 853 430 407 120 285 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.10 c0.23 c0.48 0.26 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 c0.14' v/c Ratio 1.00 1.01 dr 1.13 1.01 0.97 0.98 0.08 0.56 0.76 Progression Factor 1.05 0.70 0.85 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 99.4 34.2 60.5 9.0 23.2 38.8 0.0 5.5 11.5' Delay (s) 167.9 76.6 106.4 36.5 72.6 88.5 37.5 66.4 64.5 Level of Service F E F D E F D E E Approach Delay (s) 88.9 46.5 75.0 64.8 Approach 'LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 59.2 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.7% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c' Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 275 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3902 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 284 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 284 75 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 775 314 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.37 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 45.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 47.2 46.0 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 390 87 49 1674 282 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1,00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 3425 1736 3471 1745 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 3425 1736 3471 1745 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 402 90 51 1726 291 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 477 0 51 1726 309 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 67.3 29.6 94.5 26.6 Effective Green, g (s) 67.3 29.6 90.5 26.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.22 0.67 0.20 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1695 378 2310 341 v/s Ratio Prot c0 14 0.03 c0.50 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.28 0.13 0.75 0.91 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 42.9 15.1 53.5 Progression Factor 1.34 1.62 0.20 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 0.0 0.7 26.1 Delay (s) 27.5 69.6 3.7 79.6 Level of Service C E A E Approach Delay (s) 27.5 5.6 79.6 Approach 'LOS C A E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 5 213 178 42 895 1 630 2 47 2 4 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1524 1736 3471 1752 1558 1625 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 220 184 43 923 1 649 2 48 2' 4 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 220 62 43 924 0 649 27 0 0 27 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 33.5 HCM Level of Service 1 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 0.80 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 45.7 45.7 6.5 51.2 71.8 71.8 71.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 1.0 45.7 45.7 6.5 51.2 71.8 71.8 71.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.53 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 1189 512 83 1307 708 823 856 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.06 0.02 c0.27 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.48 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.19 0.12 0.52 0.71 0.92 0.03 0.03 Progression Factor 0.64 0.58 0.19 1.10 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 6.7 0.3 0.5 2.0 2.9 16.3 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 49.7 18.8 6.5 71.4 33.9 45.7 15.4 15.4 Level of Service D B A E C D B B Approach Delay (s) 13.7 35.6 43.5 15.4 Approach 'LOS B D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + r Volume (vph) 173 113 76 686 435 212 45 522 138 179 366 146 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.92' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 1291 3030 1644 1378 1562 3124 1398 1382 2902 1256 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 116 78 707 448 219 46 538 142 185' 377 151' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 124 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 294 16 707 448 65 46 538 142 166 396 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.14 45 0.01 0.05 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) v/c Ratio 0.92 7 0.79 0.92 0.16 3 0.90 0.21 1 0.75 0.12 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 7% 7 % 7% Turn Type' Split 1.00 Perm Split 0.89 Perm Split Incremental Delay,' d2 pt+ov' Split 4.1 Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 12.1' 7 7 Delay (s) 6 6 67 2 2 64.9 Permitted' Phases 52.8 50.3 8 Level of Service E 7 C D B D E B' 2' Actuated Green, G (s) DD 23.9 23.9 35.4 35.4 35.4 22.9 22.9 58.3 21.8 21.8 21.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.49 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 257 894 485 407 298 596 679 251' 527 228 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.23 c0.27 0.03 c0.17 0.10 0.12 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.06 0.79 0.92 0.16 0.15 0.90 0.21 0.66 0.75 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 47.1 38.9 38.9 41.0 31.3 40.5 47.5 17.7' 45.7' 46.5 41..1' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.54 0.40 1.00 1.02 0.93 0.89 0.89 1.25 Incremental Delay,' d2 29.4 0.1 4.1 20.5 0.2 0.2 16.3 0.1 12.1' 8.9 1.0' Delay (s) 76.5 39.0 24.7 42.6 12.7 40.6 64.9 16.5 52.8 50.3 52.5 Level of Service E D C D B D E B' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 68.6 28.6 53.9 51.4 Approach 'LOS E C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 89 248 292 97 112 286 0 0 354 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1625 3423 3300 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1625 3423 3300 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 92 256 301 100 115 295 0 0 365 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 92 230 410 0 0 410 0 0 394 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 4 % 4% 4 % 7% 7 % 7% Turn Type' Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 24.6 24.6 11.1 12.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.1 24.6 24.6 11.1 12.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 676 666 633 677 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.14 c0.25 c0.12 c0 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.32 0.34 0.62 0.65 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 12.1 14.0 22.6 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.8 1.4 4.2 1.6 1.3 Delay (s) 22.0 13.5 18.2 19.6 22.8 Level of Service C B B B C Approach Delay (s) 22.0 16.5 19.6 22.8 Approach 'LOS C B B C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r 0.97 + r 0.97 0 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 167 149 214 1072 225 382 142 191 248 168 918 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 161!0 3341 1583 1610 3275 1583 1770 3205 1770 3539 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 172 154 221 1105 232 394 146 197 256 173' 946 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 136 0 0 138 0 228 0 0 0 61 Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 219 85 552 785 256 146 225 0 173' 946 21' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C C F D C 7 C Approach 'Delay (s) 3 40.4 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 63.4 4 Approach LOS D 4 Turn Type Split E Prot Split Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5' 2 Permitted Phases 2 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 35.4 35.4 35.4 8.0 10.5 22.5 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0,12 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.11 0.23' 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 404 191 594 1208 584 148 351 415 922 404 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.07 0.05 c0.34 0.24 0.16 c0.08 0.07 0.10 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 39.7 39.2 29.1 25.2 22.8 43.9 40.9 31.2 35.5 26.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.89 0.88 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00' Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.8 0.6 2.8 0.1 0.0 69.2 3.0 3.1 36.4 0.2 Delay (s) 41.4 40.5 39.8 28.7 22.2 22.1 113.1 43.9 34.2' 71.9 26.9' Level of Service D D D C C C F D C E C Approach 'Delay (s) 40.4 24.2 60.8 63.4 Approach LOS D C E E HCM Average Control Delay 43.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 dl ' Defacto Left Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a left lane. c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 1� r 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 59 101 405 103 350 3 501 268 123 13 356 828 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1569 1455 1736 1824 3367 3278 1770 1863 1548 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 104 418 106 361 3 516 276 127 13 367 854 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61 214 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 129 Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 206 _41 106 364 0 516 347 0 13' 367 725 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E 3 D 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 68.5 HCM Level of Service E 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot 96.0 Perm Prot 16.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.8 15.6 15.6 9.2 20.0 16.7 16.7 38.5 38.5 38.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.8 15.6 15.6 9.2 20.0 16.7 16.7 38.5' 38.5 38.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 88 255 236 166 380 586 570 710' 747 621' v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.13 0.06 c0.20 c0.15 0.11 0.01 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.47 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.81 0.18 0.64 0.96 0.88 0.61 0.02 0.49 1.17 Progression Factor 0.81 1.03 2.96 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 15.4 14.3 0.1 5.8 34.7 14.7 4.0 0.0' 0.2 91.7' Delay (s) 51.8 54.2 102.7 47.6 72.2 42.6 28.4 17.4 21.6 120.4 Level of Service D D F D E D C B C F Approach Delay (s) 75.2 66.7 36.4 90.0 Approach 'LOS E E D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 68.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 76 88 40 367 302 15 105 577 153 489 70 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1821 1547 1752 1825 1770 3539 1538 3364 2709 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 91 41 378 311 15 108 595 158 504 72 216 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 35 0 2 0 0 0 103 0 0 167 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 169 6 378 324 0 108 595 55 576 0 49 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot H Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 22.3 37.8 9.6 24.6 24.6 21.8 21.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 13.3 13.3 22.3 37.8 9.6 24.6 24.6 21.8' 21.8' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.39 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 252 214 407 719 177 907 394' 764 615 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.22 0.18 0.06 c0.17 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.03 0.93 0.45 0.61 0.66 0.14 0.75 0.08 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.36 0.90 0.88 1.03 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.4 0.0 25.3 1.8 3.6 3.1 0.6 3.8' 0.0' Delay (s) 44.7 35.8 53.9 9.5 40.9 31.2 29.0 38.4 29.2 Level of Service D D D A D C C' D C Approach Delay (s) 42.9 33.3 32.1 35.9 Approach 'LOS D C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 112 22 13 963 53 222 32 350 90 144 604 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1771 1540 1665 1677 1518 1752 3340 1343 3433 3424 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 115 23 13 993 55 229 33 361 93 148 623 143 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 127 0 2 71 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 138 1 526 522 102 33 368 13 148' 747 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) B Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split C Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 10.1 34.5 34.5 34.5 3.6 15.1 15.1 20.3 31.8 Effective Green, g,(s) 10.1 10.1 34.5 34.5 34.5 3.6 15.1 15.1 20.3' 31.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 162 598 603 546 66 525 211 726' 1134 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.32 0.31 0.02 c0.11 0.04 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.01 0.88 0.87 0.19 0.50 0.70 0.06 0.20 0.66 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.34 Incremental Delay,' d2 13.0 0.0 13.5 12.0 0.1 2.2 3.5 0.0 0.6' 2.6 Delay (s) 54.7 38.5 42.3 40.6 21.2 47.5 41.8 34.5 13.7 12.0 Level of Service D D D D C D D C' B B Approach Delay (s) 53.3 37.8 40.9 12.2 Approach 'LOS D D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 99 331 1808 108 34 300 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 5036 4939 1752 1516 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 5036 4939 1752 1516 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 102 341 1864 111 35 309 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 286 Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 341 1972 0 35 23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 103.1 87.4 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 103.1 87.4 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.86 0.73 0.07 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 4327 3597 130 112 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.07 c0.40 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.08 0.55 0.27 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 51.9 1.3 7.4 52.5 52.2 Progression Factor 0.96 0.94 0.31 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 53.1 1.2 2.8 52.9 52.6 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 13.2 2.8 52.6 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt rr Volume (vph) 320 45 43 1617 300 332 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4879 1736 4988 1752 2690 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4879 1736 4988 1752 2690 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 330 46 44 1667 309 342 RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 0 0 267 Lane Group Flow (vph) 366 0 44 1667 309 75 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 75.2 6.6 85.8 26.2 26.2 Effective Green, g (s) 75.2 6.6 85.8 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.05 0.71 0.22 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3058 95 3566 383 587 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.03 c0.33 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.47 0.81 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 9.0 55.0 7.3 44.5 37.7 Progression Factor 0.72 1.34 0.17 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 0.7 0.3 11.1 0.0 Delay (s) 6.6 74.7 1.5 55.6 37.7 Level of Service A E A E D Approach Delay (s) 6.6 3.4 46.2 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t )) tt 0.97 0 0.97 t Volume (vph) 169 380 103 542 1429 99 75 166 177 93 653 156 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4829 3367 4934 1752 3175 1770 3422 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 174 392 106 559 1473 102 77 171 182 96 673 161' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 38 0 0 7 0 0 135 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 174 460 0 559 1568 0 77 218 0 96 816 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E Intersection Summary 18 3 13 HCM Average Control Delay 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 38.7 HCM Level of Service 8 D 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4' 0.81 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot 80.6% ICU Level of Service Prot D Prot Analysis Period (min) Prot 15 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 19.8 42.3 23.8 46.3 6.5 30.9 7.0 31.4 Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 42.3 23.8 46.3 6.5 30.9 7.0' 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.35 0.20 0.39 0.05 0.26 0.06 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 1702 668 1904 95 818 103' 895 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.10 0.17 c0.32 c0.04 0.07 0.05 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.60 0.27 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.27 0.93 0.91 Progression Factor 0.97 0.91 0.80 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.4 0.4 2.5 1.2 37.1 0.1 66.2' 13.1 Delay (s) 47.6 25.8 39.4 25.4 93.3 35.6 122.5 56.1 Level of Service D C D C F D F E Approach Delay (s) 31.5 29.0 45.9 62.9 Approach 'LOS C C D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 203 349 98 105 1348 182 299 164 31 113 211 419 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3356 1736 3403 1665 1726 1532 1752 1643 1456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 209 3610 101 108 1390 188 308 169 32 116 218 432 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 20 0 0 9 0 0 0 21 0 17 122 Lane Group Flow (vph) 209 441 0 108 1569 0 234 243 11 116 326 185 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 83.2 5 C 1 E 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 120.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 95.8% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.2 46.6 15.1 51.5 20.3 20.3 20.3 22.0 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.2 46.6 15.1 51.5 20.3 20.3 20.3 22.0' 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.39 0.13 0.43 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 1303 218 1460 282 292 259 321' 301 267 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.13 0.06 c0.46 0.14 c0.14 0.07 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.34 0.50 1.07 0.83 0.83 0.04 0.36 1.08 0.69 Progression Factor 0.95 0.73 0.83 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 8.1 0.7 0.6 45.2 17.2 17.3 0.0 0.3' 75.7 6.2' Delay (s) 59.2 19.5 41.2 71.1 65.4 65.5 41.7 43.1 124.7 52.0 Level of Service E B D E E E D' D F DD Approach Delay (s) 31.9 69.2 63.9 83.2 Approach 'LOS C E E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 64.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 1 215 93 402 1039 9 130 25 36 7 46 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3313 1736 3467 1752 1668 1823 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.97 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 222 96 414 1071 9 134 26 37 7 47 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 289 0 414 1080 0 134 31 0 0 55 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 53.7 37.6 90.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 53.7 37.6 90.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.45 0.31 0.75 0.13 0.13 0.13 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 1483 544 2609 180 225 240 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.09 c0.24 c0.31 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.19 0.76 0.41 0.74 0.14 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 59.0 20.1 37.1 5.3 49.9 45.7 46.3 Progression Factor 1.22 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.3 5.6 0.5 13.6 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 72.7 9.1 42.8 5.8 63.5 45.8 46.5 Level of Service E A D A E D D Approach Delay (s) 9.3 16.1 57.8 46.5 Approach 'LOS A B E D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 *' r Volume (vph) 175 239 2 1 418 77 4 0 1 25 2 284 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3434 1719 3358 1693 1729 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.79 0.74 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 246 2 1 431 79 4 0 1 26 2 293' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 0 253 Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 247 0 1 489 0 0 4 0 0 28 40 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Perm' Perm' Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted' Phases 2 6' 6' Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 22.1 0.5 15.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 7.1 22.1 0.5 15.5 5.5 5.5 5.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.55 0.01 0.39 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 1893 21 1298 191 183 211' v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.07 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.13 0.05 0.38 0.02 0.15 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 15.2 4.4 19.6 8.8 15.0 15.2 15.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 3.1 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 Delay (s) 18.2 4.4 20.5 9.0 15.0 15.6 15.8 Level of Service ZB A C A B B B Approach Delay (s) 10.2 9.0 15.0 15.8 Approach 'LOS B A B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 90: Forbes & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 332 tt 0 330 296 r Volume (vph) 181 132 333 498 100 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.1 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 11.6 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3221 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.32 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 593 3539 3221 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 187 136 343 513 103 128 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 226 0 0 104 Lane Group Flow (vph) 187 136 630 0 103 24 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.7 17.7 17.7 5.9 5.9 Effective Green, g (s) 17.7 17.7 17.7 5.9 5.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0,56 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 332 1982 1804 330 296 v/s Ratio Prot 50.8% ICU Level of Service A 0.04 0.20 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.32 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.07 0.35 0.31 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 4.5 3.2 3.8 11.1 10.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 6.7 3.2 3.9 11.6 10.7 Level of Service A A A B B Approach 'Delay (s) 5.2 3.9 11.1 Approach LOS A A B HCM Average Control Delay 5.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 31.6 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 22 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 64 tt 0 874 r Volume (veh /h) 62 196 1272 26 0 178 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 27 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 64 202 1311 27 0 184 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 533 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1338 1554 669 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1325 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 229 vCu, unblocked vol 1338 1554 669 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 87 100 54 cM capacity (veh /h) 506 202 398 Volume Total 64 101 101 874 464 184 Volume Left 64 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 27 184 cSH 506 1700 1700 1700 1700 398 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 0 0 0 59 Control Delay (s) 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 Lane LOS B C Approach 'Delay (s) 3.2 0.0 21.6 Approach LOS C Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 97 308 236 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 13 132 28 88 422 18 67 9 76 5 13 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 136 29 91 435 19 69 9 78 5 13 28 Volume Total (vph) 81 97 308 236 157 46 Volume Left (vph) 13 0 91 0 69 5 Volume Right (vph) 0 29 0 19 78 28 Hadj (s) 0.18 -0.11 0,25 0.05 -,0.11 - -0.24 Departure Headway (s) 5.9 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.6 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.13 0.15 0,48 0.35 0.24 0.07 Capacity (veh /h) 572 607 630 654 612 578 Control Delay (s) 8.6 8.4 12.3 10.0 10.2 9.0 Approach Delay (s) 8.5 11.3 10.2 9.0 Approach 'LOS A B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 500 12 453 0 13 734 725 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3273 3455 1687 3374 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3273 3455 1687 3374 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 515 12 467 0 13 757 747 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 525 0 478 0 0 757 747 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 7% 7% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 25.2 32.0 68.3 103.3 Effective Green, g (s) 25.2 32.0 68.3 103.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.24 0.50 0.76 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 606 813 847 2563 v/s Ratio Prot c0 c0.14 c0.45 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.87 0.59 0.89 0.29 Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 46.2 30.6 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 12.4 3.1 11.8 0.3 Delay (s) 66.2 37.6 42.4 5.3 Level of Service E D D A Approach Delay (s) 66.2 37.6 24.0 0.0 Approach 'LOS E D C A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Airport Blvd. & Centennial Towers Dwy. 13/10/2011 *J "*� Lane Configurations tt tt r r Volume (vph) 38 357 1205 20 109 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 3374 1476 3433 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 3374 1476 3433 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 39 3618 1242 21 112 156 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 5 0 147 Lane Group Flow (vph) 39 3618 1242 16 112 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 7% 7% 2% 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Over Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 5 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 118.7 106.6 106.6 8.8 8.1 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 118.7 106.6 106.6 8.8 8.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.87 0.78 0.78 0.06 0.06 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 3029 2645 1157 222 94 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.11 c0.37 c0.03 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.12 0.47 0.01 0.50 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 61.5 1.2 5.0 3.2 61.5 60.5 Progression Factor 1.07 1.03 0.48 0.23 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 66.4 1.3 2.9 0.8 62.2 60.7 Level of Service E A A A E E Approach Delay (s) 7.6 2.9 61.3 Approach 'LOS A A E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5' Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.97 t 0.97 t rr 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 63 312 23 286 724 204 74 128 263 444 490 422 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 4930 3303 3293 1736 1827 2733 3273 3374 1482 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 322 24 295 746 210 76 132 271 458' 505 435 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 20 0 0 0 209 0 0 230 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 341 0 295 936 0 76 132 62 458' 505 205 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 33.1 3 C D D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6% 4 % 4% 4 % 7% 7 % 7% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 136.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 34.7 62.8 16.4 44.5 8.6 14.5 30.9 24.3 30.2 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 34.7 62.8 16.4 44.5 8.6 14.5 30.9 24.3' 30.2 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.46 0.12 0.33 0.06 0.11 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 443 2277 398 1077 110 195 621 585' 749 329 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 0.09 c0.28 0.04 c0.07 0.02 c0.14 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.74 0.87 0.69 0.68 0.10 0.78 0.67 0.62 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.64 0.47 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.1 5.7 6.6 14.0 7.1 0.0 5.7' 1.7 2.4 Delay (s) 39.9 21.3 61.1 50.1 76.4 65.6 41.6 41.3 32.6 24.9 Level of Service D C E D E E D' D C C Approach Delay (s) 24.2 52.7 53.7 33.1 Approach 'LOS C D D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 r 0.97 tt rr 0.97 t rr Volume (vph) 202 330 487 1308 742 1650 472 113 223 0 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.94 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 3081 1372 3303 3406 2626 3433 1863 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 208 340 502 1348 765 1701 487 116 230 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 80 181 0 0 211 0 0 91 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 208 501 80 1348 765 1490 487 116 139 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 25.5 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.91 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 6 % 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 41.6 41.6 57.5 87.8 87.8 24.4 24.4 85.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.3 41.6 41.6 57.5 87.8 87.8 24.4 24.4 81.9' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.65 0.65 0.18 0.18 0.60 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 280 942 420 1396 2199 1695 616 334 1678' v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.16 c0.41 0.22 c0.14 0.06 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.57 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.53 0.19 0.97 0.35 0.88 0.79 0.35 0.08 Progression Factor 0.96 0.72 1.08 0.78 0.68 0.59 0.53 1.19 0.05 Incremental Delay,' d2 9.0 2.0 0.9 7.6 0.1 2.5 4.9 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 67.3 30.0 38.6 37.5 7.7 14.2 33.4 58.1 0.5 Level of Service E C D D A B C E A Approach Delay (s) 39.5 21.1 27.8 0.0 Approach 'LOS D C C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 __r __4 ) r *.. Lane Configurations 0.97 9 0.97 9 0.97 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 607 0 48 35 199 2 2 6 149 1640' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 1549 1770 1583 1703 1770 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 626 0 49 36 205 2 2 6 154 1691' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 138 Lane Group Flow (vph) 626 12 0 36 205 2 0 0 160 1553' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 1 1 Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type' Perm custom Perm custom' Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 2 23 Permitted' Phases' 3 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.4 34.4 6.4 91.0 1.1 81.6 119.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 34.4 34.4 6.4 91.0 1.1 81.6 119.5'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.67 0.01 0.60 0.88 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 868 392 83 1059 14 1108 2449' v/s Ratio Prot c0 18 c0.02 0.13 c0.00 c0.56 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.03 0.43 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 46.4 38.3 63.0 8.6 67.0 11.9' 2.3' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.43 7.74 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.5 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.7 0.1 0.2' Delay (s) 48.9 38.3 64.4 9.0 68.7 17.1 17.7 Level of Service D D E A E B B Approach Delay (s) 48.2 17.2 68.7 17.6 Approach 'LOS D B E B' HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 r Volume (vph) 75 315 163 390 2276 18 1162 50 97 10 55 262 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4739 1736 4981 3221 1624 1538 1849 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.87 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 77 325 168 402 2346 19 1198 52 100 10 57 270 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 69 0 0 52 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 493 0 402 2364 0 827 423 31 0 67 218 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 6 E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type Prot ICU Level of Service Prot F Split Analysis Period (min) Perm Perm' custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 23 lane as a 4 4 8 Permitted' Phases' 4' 8' 6'8' Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 14.5 28.0 68.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 24.5 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 14.5 28.0 65.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 10.0 24.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.11 0.21 0.48 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 505 357 2381 853 430 407 120 285 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.10 c0.23 c0.47 0.26 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 c0.14' v/c Ratio 1.00 1.01 dr 1.13 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.08 0.56 0.76 Progression Factor 1.06 0.71 0.85 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 99.4 33.4 60.5 4.1 23.2 38.8 0.0 5.5 11.5' Delay (s) 168.0 76.2 106.4 31.4 72.6 88.5 37.5 66.4 64.5 Level of Service F E F C E F D E E Approach Delay (s) 88.6 42.3 75.0 64.8 Approach 'LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 57.1 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c' Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lanertonfigurations rr r Volume (vph) 269 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3902 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3902 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 277 75 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 75 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% Turn Type custom custom Protected Phases 3 3 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 775 314 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.36 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 47.0 45.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 47.1 46.0 Level of Service D D Approach Delay (s) Approach 'LOS 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 388 81 49 1660 252 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1,00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (prot) 3430 1736 3471 1744 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 Satd. Flow (perm) 3430 1736 3471 1744 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 400 84 51 1711 260 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 14 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 470 0 51 1711 278 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 67.5 31.0 96.1 25.0 Effective Green, g (s) 67.5 31.0 92.1 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.23 0.68 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1702 396 2351 321 v/s Ratio Prot c0 14 0.03 c0.49 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.28 0.13 0.73 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 20.0 41.8 14.0 53.9 Progression Factor 1.33 1.62 0.18 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 0.0 0.6 20.1 Delay (s) 26.9 67.6 3.1 74.0 Level of Service C E A E Approach Delay (s) 26.9 5.0 74.0 Approach 'LOS C A E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 tt r 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 5 213 176 42 895 1 616 2 47 2 4 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.88 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 1524 1736 3471 1752 1558 1625 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 220 181 43 923 1 635 2 48 2' 4 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 119 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 5 220 62 43 924 0 635 27 0 0 26 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 32.7 HCM Level of Service 1 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 0.79 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 46.4 46.4 6.5 51.9 71.1 71.1 71.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 1.0 46.4 46.4 6.5 51.9 71.1 71.1 71.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.38 0.52 0.52 0.52 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 13 1207 520 83 1325 702 815 848 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.06 0.02 c0.27 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.47 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.18 0.12 0.52 0.70 0.90 0.03 0.03 Progression Factor 0.64 0.59 0.20 1.09 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 6.7 0.3 0.5 2.0 2.7 14.8 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 49.7 18.8 6.6 71.1 33.2 44.2 15.8 15.7 Level of Service D B A E C D B B Approach Delay (s) 13.7 34.9 42.1 15.7 Approach 'LOS B C D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + r Volume (vph) 173 112 76 685 431 210 45 522 138 177 366 146 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.92' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1611 1291 3030 1644 1378 1562 3124 1398 1382 2902 1256 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 115 78 706 444 216 46 538 142 182' 377 151' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 123 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 293 16 706 444 64 46 538 142 164 395 28 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.14 45 0.01 0.05 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) v/c Ratio 0.91 7 0.79 0.91 0.16 3 0.92 0.21 1 0.74 0.12 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 7% 7 % 7% Turn Type' Split 1.00 Perm Split 0.90 Perm Split Incremental Delay,' d2 pt+ov' Split 3.9 Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 10.9' 7 7 Delay (s) 6 6 67 2 2 68.8 Permitted' Phases 51.4 49.4 8 Level of Service E 7 C D B D E B' 2' Actuated Green, G (s) DD 23.9 23.9 35.5 35.5 35.5 22.4 22.4 57.9 22.2 22.2 22.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.48 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 321 257 896 486 408 292 583 675 256' 537 232 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.23 c0.27 0.03 c0.17 0.10 0.12 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.06 0.79 0.91 0.16 0.16 0.92 0.21 0.64 0.74 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 47.0 38.9 38.8 40.8 31.2 40.9 48.0 17.9' 45.2' 46.1 40..8' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.52 0.53 0.39 1.00 1.03 0.94 0.90 0.90 1.25 Incremental Delay,' d2 28.9 0.1 3.9 19.0 0.2 0.2 19.6 0.1 10.9' 8.1 1.0' Delay (s) 76.0 39.0 24.0 40.5 12.2 41.1 68.8 16.9 51.4 49.4 51.9 Level of Service E D C D B D E B' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 68.2 27.5 56.9 50.4 Approach 'LOS E C E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 88 247 292 97 111 285 0 0 354 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1625 3423 3300 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1625 3423 3300 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 91 255 301 100 114 294 0 0 365 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 91 229 410 0 0 408 0 0 394 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 4 % 4% 4 % 7% 7 % 7% Turn Type' Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 24.6 24.6 11.1 12.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.1 24.6 24.6 11.1 12.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 676 666 633 677 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.14 c0.25 c0.12 c0 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.31 0.34 0.62 0.64 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 21.1 12.1 14.0 22.6 21.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.8 1.4 4.2 1.5 1.3 Delay (s) 22.0 13.5 18.2 18.9 22.8 Level of Service C B B B C Approach Delay (s) 22.0 16.5 18.9 22.8 Approach 'LOS C B B C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 4+ r 0.97 + r 0.97 0 0.97 tt r Volume (vph) 167 149 214 1020 224 382 142 191 248 168 918 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 161!0 3341 1583 1610 3276 1583 1770 3205 1770 3539 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 172 154 221 1052 231 394 146 197 256 173' 946 82 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 137 0 0 143 0 228 0 0 0 61 Lane Group Flow (vph) 107 219 84 526 757 251 146 225 0 173' 946 21' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C C F D C 7 C Approach 'Delay (s) 3 40.4 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 63.4 4 Approach LOS D 4 Turn Type Split E Prot Split Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 5' 2 Permitted Phases 2 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 35.4 35.4 35.4 8.0 10.5 22.5 25.0 25.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0,12 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.08 0.11 0.23' 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 404 191 594 1208 584 148 351 415 922 404 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.07 0.05 c0.33 0.23 0.16 c0.08 0.07 0.10 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 39.7 39.2 28.4 24.9 22.7 43.9 40.9 31.2 35.5 26.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.88 0.87 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00' Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.8 0.6 4.6 0.2 0.1 69.2 3.0 3.1 36.4 0.2 Delay (s) 41.4 40.5 39.8 29.7 21.9 21.7 113.1 43.9 34.2' 71.9 26.9' Level of Service D D D C C C F D C E C Approach 'Delay (s) 40.4 24.3 60.8 63.4 Approach LOS D C E E HCM Average Control Delay 43.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 1� r 0.97 0.97 0.97 0 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 59 101 405 103 310 3 501 268 122 13 356 815 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 1569 1455 1736 1824 3367 3279 1770 1863 1548 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 61 104 418 106 320 3 516 276 126 13 367 840 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 61 214 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 136 Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 206 _41 106 323 0 516 347 0 13' 367 704 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 D 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 62.6 HCM Level of Service E 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 4 % 4% 4 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot 96.0 Perm Prot 12.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.8 15.6 15.6 8.9 19.7 16.9 16.9 38.6 38.6 38.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.8 15.6 15.6 8.9 19.7 16.9 16.9 38.6 38.6 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 88 255 236 161 374 593 577 712' 749 622 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.13 0.06 c0.18 c0.15 0.11 0.01 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.46 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.81 0.18 0.66 0.86 0.87 0.60 0.02 0.49 1.13 Progression Factor 0.81 1.03 2.96 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 15.4 14.3 0.1 7.2 17.7 13.7 3.8 0.0' 0.2 78.3' Delay (s) 51.8 54.2 102.7 49.3 54.5 41.4 28.0 17.3 21.6 107.0 Level of Service D D F D D D C B C F Approach Delay (s) 75.2 53.2 35.5 80.4 Approach 'LOS E D D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 62.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.97 0.97 0.97 tt r 0.97 rr Volume (vph) 76 88 40 367 302 15 105 577 153 488 70 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1821 1547 1752 1825 1770 3539 1538 3364 2709 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 78 91 41 378 311 15 108 595 158 503 72 216 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 35 0 2 0 0 0 102 0 0 167 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 169 6 378 324 0 108 595 56 575' 0 49 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot H Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 22.3 37.9 9.6 24.7 24.7 21.7 21.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 13.3 13.3 22.3 37.9 9.6 24.7 24.7 21.7' 21.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.39 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 252 214 407 720 177 911 396 760' 612 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.22 0.18 0.06 c0.17 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.03 0.93 0.45 0.61 0.65 0.14 0.76 0.08 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.35 0.90 0.88 1.03 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.4 0.0 25.3 1.8 3.6 3.0 0.6 3.8' 0.0' Delay (s) 44.7 35.8 54.0 9.4 41.0 31.1 28.9 38.5 29.3 Level of Service D D D A D C C' D C Approach Delay (s) 42.9 33.3 31.9 36.0 Approach 'LOS D C C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 0 r 0.97 t Volume (vph) 112 22 13 952 53 222 32 350 89 144 604 139 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1771 1540 1665 1677 1518 1752 3340 1343 3433 3424 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 115 23 13 981 55 229 33 361 92 148 623 143 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 128 0 2 70 0 19 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 138 1 520 516 101 33 368 13 148' 747 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) B Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split C Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 10.1 34.4 34.4 34.4 3.6 15.1 15.1 20.4 31.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 10.1 10.1 34.4 34.4 34.4 3.6 15.1 15.1 20.4 31.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.33 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 162 597 601 544 66 525 211 730' 1138 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 c0.31 0.31 0.02 c0.11 0.04 c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.01 0.87 0.86 0.19 0.50 0.70 0.06 0.20 0.66 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 0.34 Incremental Delay,' d2 13.0 0.0 12.8 11.3 0.1 2.2 3.5 0.0 0.5' 2.6 Delay (s) 54.7 38.5 41.5 39.8 21.2 47.5 41.8 34.5 13.7 11.9 Level of Service D D D D C D D C' B B Approach Delay (s) 53.3 37.2 40.9 12.2 Approach 'LOS D D D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 96.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 99 328 1790 108 34 300 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 5036 4938 1752 1516 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 5036 4938 1752 1516 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 102 338 1845 111 35 309 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 286 Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 338 1953 0 35 23 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 103.1 87.4 8.9 8.9 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 103.1 87.4 8.9 8.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.86 0.73 0.07 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 4327 3597 130 112 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.07 c0.40 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.08 0.54 0.27 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 51.9 1.3 7.3 52.5 52.2 Progression Factor 0.99 0.88 0.32 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 54.5 1.2 2.9 52.9 52.6 Level of Service D A A D D Approach Delay (s) 13.5 2.9 52.6 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt rr Volume (vph) 317 45 43 1599 300 323 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4878 1736 4988 1752 2690 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4878 1736 4988 1752 2690 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 327 46 44 1648 309 333 RTOR Reduction (vph) 10 0 0 0 0 260 Lane Group Flow (vph) 363 0 44 1648 309 73 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 75.2 6.6 85.8 26.2 26.2 Effective Green, g (s) 75.2 6.6 85.8 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.05 0.71 0.22 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3057 95 3566 383 587 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.03 c0.33 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.46 0.81 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 9.0 55.0 7.3 44.5 37.7 Progression Factor 0.75 1.36 0.16 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 0.8 0.3 11.1 0.0 Delay (s) 6.9 75.4 1.4 55.6 37.7 Level of Service A E A E D Approach Delay (s) 6.9 3.4 46.3 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t )) tt 0.97 0 0.97 t Volume (vph) 169 368 103 529 1411 99 75 166 177 93 653 156 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4824 3367 4933 1752 3175 1770 3422 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 174 379 106 545 1455 102 77 171 182 96 673 161' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 39 0 0 7 0 0 135 0 0 18 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 174 446 0 545 1550 0 77 218 0 96 816 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E Intersection Summary 18 3 13 HCM Average Control Delay 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 38.8 HCM Level of Service 8 D 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4' 0.80 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 2% 2 % 2% Turn Type' Prot 80.3% ICU Level of Service Prot D Prot Analysis Period (min) Prot 15 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 42.7 23.4 46.1 6.5 30.9 7.0 31.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 20.0 42.7 23.4 46.1 6.5 30.9 7.0' 31.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.36 0.19 0.38 0.05 0.26 0.06 0.26 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1717 657 1895 95 818 103' 895 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.09 0.16 c0.31 c0.04 0.07 0.05 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.60 0.26 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.27 0.93 0.91 Progression Factor 0.97 0.91 0.79 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.2 0.4 2.7 1.3 37.1 0.1 66.2' 13.1 Delay (s) 47.2 25.4 39.4 25.4 93.3 35.6 122.5 56.1 Level of Service D C D C F D F E Approach Delay (s) 31.2 29.0 45.9 62.9 Approach 'LOS C C D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 0.97 r Volume (vph) 194 346 98 88 1337 182 299 164 30 113 187 399 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3355 1736 3403 1665 1726 1532 1752 1635 1456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 200 357 101 91 1378 188 308 169 31 116 193 411' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 9 0 0 0 20 0 19 123 Lane Group Flow (vph) 200 437 0 91 1557 0 234 243 11 116 297 166 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.46 0.14 5 0.07 1 v/s Ratio Perm 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 15 0.11' v/c Ratio 0.72 3 0.42 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 42.9' 48.9 Prot Progression Factor 0.97 Split Perm Split 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.6 8 8 39.0 4 4 0.0 Permitted' Phases 49.2 3.0' Delay (s) 60.2 19.5 40.5 64.5 8' 65.5 41.7 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 46.7 E 15.0 51.9 D 20.3 20.3 20.3 22.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.39 0.12 0.43 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 1306 217 1472 282 292 259 321' 300 267 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.13 0.05 c0.46 0.14 c0.14 0.07 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.11' v/c Ratio 0.72 0.33 0.42 1.06 0.83 0.83 0.04 0.36 0.99 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 25.7 48.5 34.0 48.2 48.2 41.7' 42.9' 48.9 45..1' Progression Factor 0.97 0.73 0.83 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 8.1 0.6 0.4 39.0 17.2 17.3 0.0 0.3' 49.2 3.0' Delay (s) 60.2 19.5 40.5 64.5 65.4 65.5 41.7 43.1 98.1 48.2 Level of Service E B D E E E D' D F fD Approach Delay (s) 31.8 63.2 64.0 69.3 Approach 'LOS C E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 58.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 1 211 93 390 1011 9 130 25 35 7 46 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3311 1736 3467 1752 1670 1823 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.97 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 218 96 402 1042 9 134 26 36 7 47 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 285 0 402 1051 0 134 31 0 0 55 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 54.5 36.8 90.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 54.5 36.8 90.3 16.2 16.2 16.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.45 0.31 0.75 0.13 0.13 0.13 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 1504 532 2609 180 225 240 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.09 c0.23 c0.30 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.19 0.76 0.40 0.74 0.14 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 59.0 19.6 37.5 5.3 49.9 45.7 46.3 Progression Factor 1.20 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.3 5.4 0.5 13.6 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 71.4 8.9 42.9 5.7 63.5 45.8 46.5 Level of Service E A D A E D D Approach Delay (s) 9.1 16.0 57.9 46.5 Approach 'LOS A B E D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: Forbes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 *' r Volume (vph) 175 230 2 1 374 47 4 0 1 19 2 284 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3434 1719 3381 1693 1731 1538 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.79 0.74 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 180 237 2 1 386 48 4 0 1 20 2 293' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 252 Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 238 0 1 420 0 0 4 0 0 22 41' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Perm' Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted' Phases 2 6' 6' Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 20.9 0.5 14.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 7.1 20.9 0.5 14.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.01 0.37 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 315 1850 22 1246 194 187 214 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.07 0.00 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 c0.03 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.13 0.05 0.34 0.02 0.12 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 14.5 4.4 18.9 8.8 14.4 14.6 14.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 2.5 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 Delay (s) 17.0 4.5 19.8 9.0 14.5 14.9 15.2 Level of Service l3B A B A B B B Approach Delay (s) 9.8 9.0 14.5 15.2 Approach 'LOS A A B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 38.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 90: Forbes & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 322 tt 0 342 306 r Volume (vph) 167 131 333 498 100 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.1 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 11.0 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3221 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.32 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 592 3539 3221 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 172 135 343 513 103 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 234 0 0 102 Lane Group Flow (vph) 172 135 622 0 103 24 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected 'Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 5.9 5.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 16.6 16.6 5.9 5.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.54 0.54 0,54 0.19 0.19 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 322 1926 1753 342 306 v/s Ratio Prot 50.0% ICU Level of Service A 0.04 0.19 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.29 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.07 0.35 0.30 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 4.5 3.3 3.9 10.5 10.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) 6.2 3.3 4.0 11.0 10.2 Level of Service A A A B B Approach 'Delay (s) 4.9 4.0 10.6 Approach LOS A A B HCM Average Control Delay 5.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 30.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 22 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 59 tt 0 874 r Volume (veh /h) 57 196 1272 25 0 138 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 26 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 59 202 1311 26 0 142 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 533 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1337 1543 669 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1324 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 219 vCu, unblocked vol 1337 1543 669 tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.9 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 88 100 64 cM capacity (veh /h) 506 202 398 Volume Total 59 101 101 874 463 142 Volume Left 59 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 26 142 cSH 506 1700 1700 1700 1700 398 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 0 40 Control Delay (s) 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 Lane LOS B C Approach 'Delay (s) 2.9 0.0 19.0 Approach LOS C Average Delay 2.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 93 307 236 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 13 125 28 87 421 18 67 9 67 5 13 27 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 129 29 90 434 19 69 9 69 5 13 28 Volume Total (vph) 78 93 307 236 147 46 Volume Left (vph) 13 0 90 0 69 5 Volume Right (vph) 0 29 0 19 69 28 Hadj (s) 0.19 -0.11 0,25 0.05 - ,0.09 - -0.24 Departure Headway (s) 5.9 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.5 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.13 0.14 0,47 0.35 0.22 0.07 Capacity (veh /h) 576 613 635 660 612 584 Control Delay (s) 8.5 8.3 12.1 9.9 10.0 8.9 Approach Delay (s) 8.4 11.1 10.0 8.9 Approach 'LOS A B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/2011 PM 2015 Base Case Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 41!4 5 231 0 13 620 498 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3404 3406 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3404 3406 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 440 5 246 0 14 660 530 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 444 0 257 0 0 660 530 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 5% 0% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 18.9 28.9 51.7 83.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.9 28.9 51.7 83.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.26 0.47 0.76 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 585 895 808 2613 v/s Ratio Prot c0 c0.08 c0.38 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.76 0.29 0.82 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 43.4 32.3 25.1 3.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.6 0.8 6.4 0.2 Delay (s) 49.0 24.9 31.5 3.9 Level of Service D C C A Approach Delay (s) 49.0 24.9 19.2 0.0 Approach 'LOS D C B A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.95 t 0.95 t rr 0.95 tt r Volume (vph) 61 302 22 230 728 65 41 118 127 159 337 416 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4717 3303 3330 3400 1845 2584' 3242 3505 1539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 318 23 242 766 68 43 124 134 167' 355 438 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 92 0 0 241 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 335 0 242 829 0 43 124 42 167' 355 197 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 22.7 3 C C D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 9% 5% 6% 7% 8% 3 % 3% 10 % 8% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 110.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 52.8 12.1 56.6 4.0 17.6 34.7 9.5 23.1 23.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.3 52.8 12.1 56.6 4.0 17.6 34.7 9.5' 23.1 23.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.48 0.11 0.51 0.04 0.16 0.32 0.09 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 2264 363 1713 124 295 815 280' 736 323 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.07 c0.07 c0.25 0.01 0.07 0.02 c0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.15 0.67 0.48 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.60 0.48 0.61 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.17 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.62 0.25 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.1 3.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.0 2.2' 0.2 2.3' Delay (s) 49.8 16.1 58.3 10.9 52.3 42.0 26.2 48.3 23.7 12.2 Level of Service D B E B D D C' D C B Approach Delay (s) 21.5 21.6 36.4 22.7 Approach 'LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 r 0.98 tt r 0.98 0.98 rr Volume (vph) 178 142 268 1002 635 940 388 100 129 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 *1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 321!3 2944 1274 3471 3438 1822 1559 1623 2707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 182 145 273 1022 648 959 396 102 132 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 107 106 0 0 200 0 0 39 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 175 30 1022 648 759 246 252 93 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 22.2 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.71 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 3% 12% 4% 5% 3 % 10 % 5% 5 % 0% 0 % 0% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 52.1 61.6 61.6 21.4 21.4 77.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 52.1 61.6 61.6 21.4 21.4 77.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.56 0.56 0.19 0.19 0.70 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 424 642 278 1644 1925 1020 303 316 1907' v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 0.29 0.19 c0.16 0.16 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.42 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.11 0.62 0.34 0.74 0.81 0.80 0.05 Progression Factor 0.75 0.70 1.27 0.96 0.75 0.93 0.46 0.46 1.14 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.4 4.0 13.6 11.5 0.0 Delay (s) 33.5 26.0 44.5 22.2 10.3 21.0 33.0 30.9 5.7 Level of Service C C D C B C C C A' Approach Delay (s) 32.4 18.8 26.4 0.0 Approach 'LOS C B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 --r ) r Lane Configurations )y r 0.96 9 0.96 0.96 0.96 rr Volume (vph) 481 13 35 134 2 2 5 39 1226 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3220 1451 1719 1538 1741 1805 1805 2760 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 501 14 36 140 2 2 5 41 1277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 228 Lane Group Flow (vph) 502 3 36 140 2 0 5 41 1049' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 24.1 6.0 71.2 1.1 1.1 66.3 93.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 24.1 24.1 6.0 71.2 1.1 1.1 66.3 90.4' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.60 0.82 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 705 318 94 996 17 18 1088 2268 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.02 0.09 c0.00 0.00 0.02 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.01 0.38 0.14 0.12 0.28 0.04 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 33.6 50.2 7.5 54.0 54.1 8.9 2.8' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 0.67 18.69 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 2.6 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 42.6 33.6 51.2 7.6 55.1 75.4 6.0 52.7 Level of Service D C D A E E A D Approach Delay (s) 42.4 16.5 55.1 51.3 Approach 'LOS D B E D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Future 101 NB Ramp /Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4- Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.99 0.99 r rr r Volume (vph) 0 225 46 48 1626 951 0 75 133 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 19 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 4% 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected Prot 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4896 1752 4988 3221 1610 1541 3827 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 227 46 48 1642 961 0 76 134 27' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 273 0 48 1642 644 317 19 134 27' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Average Control Delay 6 HCM Level of Service C 4 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot 66.5% Split Perm 'custom custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 c Critical Lane Group 3 3 Permitted' Phases' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.0 6.5 63.0 27.2 27.2 27.2 8.3 8.3 Effective Green, g,(s) 52.0 6.5 63.0 27.2 27.2 27.2 8.3 8.3'' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.06 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.08 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5'' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2314 104 2857 796 398 381 289 118' v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.03 c0.33 c0.20 0.20 c0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.57 0.81 0.80 0.05 0.46 0.23 Progression Factor 0.67 1.22 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 1.0 0.7 5.7 9.9 0.0 0.4' 0.4 Delay (s) 11.0 62.0 6.6 44.7 48.7 31.6 49.1 48.2 Level of Service B E A D D C D' D Approach Delay (s) 11.0 8.2 45.0 Approach 'LOS B A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 253 45 13 1228 312 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3223 1656 3312 1655 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3223 1656 3312 1655 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 266 47 14 1293 328 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 11 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 302 0 14 1293 337 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 39.5 32.1 66.6 25.9 Effective Green, g (s) 39.5 32.1 66.6 25.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.29 0.61 0.24 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1157 483 2005 390 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.01 c0.39 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.26 0.03 0.64 0.87 Uniform Delay, d1 24.9 27.8 14.0 40.4 Progression Factor 0.86 1.91 0.74 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 0.0 0.4 17.3 Delay (s) 21.9 53.0 10.9 57.6 Level of Service C D B E Approach Delay (s) 21.9 11.3 57.6 Approach 'LOS C B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.94 + r 0.94 t 0.94 0.94 0.94 Volume (vph) 1 112 153 16 473 1 644 0 19 2 0 1' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1743 1450 1656 3311 1656 1461 1611 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.96 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 119 163 17 503 1 685 0 20 2 0 1' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 119 50 17 504 0 685 11 0 0 3 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 32.0 HCM Level of Service 1 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.73 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 33.8 33.8 2.8 35.6 61.4 61.4 61.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 1.0 33.8 33.8 2.8 35.6 61.4 61.4 61.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.32 0.56 0.56 0.56 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 536 446 42 1072 736 816 889 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.07 c0.01 c0.15 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.52 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.22 0.11 0.40 0.47 0.93 0.01 0.00 Progression Factor 1.73 0.39 0.47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 1.0 0.5 2.3 1.5 18.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 94.2 12.0 13.4 55.1 31.2 40.5 10.8 10.8 Level of Service F B B E C D B B Approach Delay (s) 13.1 31.9 39.6 10.8 Approach 'LOS B C D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.95 + r 0.95 tt r 0.95 + r Volume (vph) 165 50 76 575 181 188 45 333 110 162 306 145 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.93' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0. 85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1599 1282 2648 1660 1391 1577 3154 1321 1369 3007 1318 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 174 53 80 605 191 198 47 351 116 171' 322 153 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 0 0 143 0 0 0 0 0 118 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 227 15 605 191 55 47 351 116 154 339 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.11 45 0.01 0.04 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) v/c Ratio 0.77 7 0.82 0.41 0.14 3 0.74 0.21 1 0.49 0.12 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 19% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 10 % 8% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split 0.91 Perm Split 1.00 Perm Split Incremental Delay,' d2 pt+ov' Split 7.0 Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 5.0' 7 7 Delay (s) 6 6 67 2 2 44.0 Permitted' Phases 38.3 35.5 8 Level of Service D 7 C B B C D B' 2' Actuated Green, G (s) DD 18.3 18.3 27.8 27.8 27.8 15.0 15.0 42.8 22.9 22.9 22.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 293 235 736 461 387 237 473 565' 314 689 302 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.23 0.12 0.03 c0.11 0.09 0.11 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.06 0.82 0.41 0.14 0.20 0.74 0.21 0.49 0.49 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 33.8 33.8 29.5 27.1 37.2 40.6 17.9' 33.5' 33.5 30..5' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.54 0.47 0.39 0.91 0.94 0.70 1.00 0.99 1.45 Incremental Delay,' d2 11.6 0.1 7.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 5.7 0.1 5.0' 2.3 0.7' Delay (s) 50.5 33.8 25.2 14.3 10.7 34.3 44.0 12.7 38.3 35.5 45.0 Level of Service D C C B B C D B' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 46.2 20.2 36.0 38.4 Approach 'LOS D C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 109 245 288 1 113 223 0 0 278 42 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1429 1491 1563 3087 3061 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1429 1491 1563 3087 3061 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 120 269 316 1 124 245 0 0 305 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 120 242 344 0 0 369 0 0 323 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15 % 15% 15 % 15% Turn Type' Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 16.4 16.4 11.0 10.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.0 16.4 16.4 11.0 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 489 513 679 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.16 c0.22 c0.12 Co 11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.38 0.49 0.67 0.54 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 13.5 14.5 17.3 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 3.6 6.8 0.9 0.6 Delay (s) 17.7 17.0 21.3 14.2 18.0 Level of Service B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 17.7 19.5 14.2 18.0 Approach 'LOS B B B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.99 4+ r 0.99 + r 0.99 0 0.99 tt r Volume (vph) 121 134 200 684 179 389 78 29 191 152 1004 76 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1521 3260 1468 1579 3230 1568 1719 2835 1736 3167 1525 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 135 202 691 181 393 79 29 193 154 1014 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 178 0 0 211 0 130 0 0 0 45 Lane Group Flow (vph) 83 174 24 345 527 182 79 92 0 154 1014 32 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D C 7 Intersection Summary 3 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 HCM Average Control Delay 4 33.8 HCM Level of Service 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 8% 4% 10% 4% 3% 3 % 5 % 15% 8 % 4% 14 % 4% Turn Type' Split 100.0 Prot Split Prot Prot Intersection Capacity Utilization Prot Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 15 5 2 Permitted' Phases c Critical Lane Group 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 9.4 9.4 25.1 25.1 25.1 7.6 32.5 17.0 41.9 41.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 9.4 9.4 9.4 25.1 25.1 25.1 7.6 32.5 17.0' 41.9 41.9' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.32 0.17 0.42 0.42 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 306 138 396 811 394 131 921 295' 1327 639 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 0.02 c0.22 0.16 0.12 c0.05 0.03 0.09 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.57 0.18 0.87 0.65 0.46 0.60 0.10 0.52 0.76 0.05 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.38 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.69 0.63 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.8 1.4 0.2 15.0 1.1 0.3 5.3 0.0 6.2' 4.1 0.1' Delay (s) 47.2 44.8 42.0 49.1 33.2 44.1 50.0 23.6 45.1 21.3 11.0 Level of Service D D D D C D D C D C B Approach Delay (s) 44.0 40.9 30.5 23.6 Approach 'LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 1� r 0.98 0.98 0.98 0 0.98 t r Volume (vph) 34 101 342 103 390 3 494 124 62 7 200 368 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1532 1442 1736 1807 3367 3195 1719 1845 1528 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 103 349 105 398 3 504 127 63 7' 204 376 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 48 180 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 216 Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 184 40 105 401 0 504 151 0 7 204 160 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 C 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 46.1 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 10% 4% 4% 5% 4 % 4 % 7% 5 % 5% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 100.0 Perm Prot 16.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 C 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 18.2 18.2 12.1 25.9 38.0 38.0 15.7 15.7 15.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.4 18.2 18.2 12.1 25.9 38.0 38.0 15.7' 15.7 15.7' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.26 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76 279 262 210 468 1279 1214 270' 290 240 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.12 0.06 c0.22 c0.15 0.05 0.00 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.66 0.15 0.50 0.86 0.39 0.12 0.03 0.70 0.67 Progression Factor 0.93 1.12 2.55 1.00 1.00 1.32 1.47 0.71 0.86 1.19 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.6 4.1 0.1 0.7 13.8 0.9 0.2 0.0' 5.8 5.0' Delay (s) 45.0 46.8 87.7 41.8 49.1 30.6 29.9 25.2 40.1 52.1 Level of Service D D F D D C C C D DD Approach Delay (s) 65.2 47.6 30.4 47.6 Approach 'LOS E D C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.99 t 0.99 tt r )y r Volume (vph) 16 8 12 315 289 15 16 476 153 359 13 188 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1627 1396 1597 3159 1597 3195 1393 3072 1274 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 8 12 318 292 15 16 481 155 363 13 190 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 92 4 0 142 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 24 1 318 305 0 16 481 63 391' 0 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot C Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 4.2 25.2 60.9 4.4 39.6 39.6 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.2 4.2 25.2 60.9 4.4 39.6 39.6 17.0'' 17.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.61 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 59 402 1924 70 1265 552 522' 217 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.20 0.10 0.01 c0.15 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.01 0.79 0.16 0.23 0.38 0.11 0.75 0.13 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.28 0.81 0.71 0.59 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.2 0.0 9.7 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4' 5.1' 0.1' Delay (s) 47.7 45.9 38.5 11.0 37.9 15.9 11.6 44.6 35.4 Level of Service D D D B D B B' D DD Approach Delay (s) 47.1 25.0 15.4 41.8 Approach 'LOS D C B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + Volume (vph) 20 1 13 928 2 222 32 388 70 144 518 1' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1605 1392 1517 1522 1383 1597 3195 1345 1597 3194 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 1 13 957 2 229 33 400 72 148 534 1' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 136 0 0 51 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 22 1 478 481 93 33 400 21 148' 535 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) B Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split C Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 4.1 36.7 36.7 36.7 4.8 29.3 29.3 13.9 38.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.1 4.1 36.7 36.7 36.7 4.8 29.3 29.3 13.9' 38.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.38 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 57 557 559 508 77 936 394' 222' 1226 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.31 c0.32 0.02 c0.13 c0.09 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.01 0.86 0.86 0.18 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.67 0.44 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.49 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 0.0 12.0 12.4 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.3 7.6' 1.1 Delay (s) 47.7 46.0 41.3 41.7 21.5 47.7 30.0 25.6 42.5 12.1 Level of Service D D D D C D C C' D B Approach Delay (s) 47.1 37.6 30.5 18.7 Approach 'LOS D D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 29 293 1377 40 12 67 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 5036 4915 1719 1475 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 5036 4915 1719 1475 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 305 1434 42 12 70 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 0 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 305 1475 0 12 4 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 86.6 78.2 5.4 5.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.4 86.6 78.2 5.4 5.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.87 0.78 0.05 0.05 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76 4361 3844 93 80 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.06 c0.30 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.07 0.38 0.13 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 1.0 3.4 45.1 44.9 Progression Factor 1.28 0.74 0.05 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 60.7 0.7 0.4 45.3 44.9 Level of Service E A A D D Approach Delay (s) 6.1 0.4 45.0 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt r Volume (vph) 234 71 34 1!127 290 231 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4707 1770 4472 1641 1503 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4707 1770 4472 1641 1503 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 236 72 34 1138 293 233 RTOR Reduction (vph) 28 0 0 0 0 180 Lane Group Flow (vph) 280 0 34 1138 293 53 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 2% 16% 10% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 60.7 4.5 69.2 22.8 22.8 Effective Green, g (s) 60.7 4.5 69.2 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.04 0.69 0.23 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2857 80 3095 374 343 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.02 c0.25 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.42 0.37 0.78 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 8.2 46.5 6.4 36.3 30.9 Progression Factor 0.60 1.21 0.35 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 1.1 0.3 9.5 0.1 Delay (s) 5.0 57.2 2.5 45.8 31.0 Level of Service A E A D C Approach Delay (s) 5.0 4.1 39.2 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.98 0 0.98 t Volume (vph) 93 298 74 172 1088 111 66 45 54 93' 340 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 4800 1671 4517 1641 3157 1752 3459 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 304 76 176 1110 113 67 46 55 95' 347 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 9 0 0 48 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 347 0 176 1214 0 67 53 0 95' 352 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D Intersection Summary 18 3 13 HCM Average Control Delay 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 22.1 HCM Level of Service 8 C 1 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 4' 0.57 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 8% 14% 4 % 10 % 3% 3 % 3% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot 57.8% ICU Level of Service Prot B Prot Analysis Period (min) Prot 15 Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 46.9 14.9 48.6 7.6 13.5 8.7 14.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 13.2 46.9 14.9 48.6 7.6 13.5 8.7' 14.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.47 0.15 0.49 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 2251 249 2195 125 426 152' 505 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.07 c0.11 c0.27 c0.04 0.02 0.05 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.41 0.15 0.71 0.55 0.54 0.13 0.62 0.70 Progression Factor 0.80 0.66 1.01 0.56 0.88 0.94 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 0.1 5.4 0.7 2.2 0.0 5.7' 3.4 Delay (s) 32.5 10.2 46.2 10.9 41.1 35.8 49.7 44.0 Level of Service C B D B D D D D Approach Delay (s) 14.6 15.3 37.9 45.2 Approach 'LOS B B D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.95 0 0.95 t 0.95 0.95 r 0.95 0.95 r Volume (vph) 187 200 63 112 830 19 179 36 29 4 155 362 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2968 2920 1530 3048 1453 1481 1336 1530 1422 1273 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 197 211 66 118 874 20 188 38 31 4 168 381' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 27 0 25 209 Lane Group Flow (vph) 197 253 0 118 893 0 113 113 4 4 261 54 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.29 c0.08 5 0.00 1 v/s Ratio Perm 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 15 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.52 3 0.77 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot 31.8' 38.8 Prot Progression Factor 0.93 Split Perm Split 1.00 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 1.00 5 2 0.4 8 8 4.4 4 4 0.0 Permitted' Phases 27.5 0.1' Delay (s) 39.2 16.3 58.8 28.1 8' 46.5 38.7 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.7 41.4 D 10.0 38.7 E 12.2 12.2 12.2 20.4 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.41 0.10 0.39 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 377 1209 153 1180 177 181 163 312' 290 260 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.09 0.08 c0.29 c0.08 0.08 0.00 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.21 0.77 0.76 0.64 0.62 0.02 0.01 0.90 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 18.8 43.9 26.6 41.8 41.7 38.7' 31.8' 38.8 33..1' Progression Factor 0.93 0.84 0.92 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.3 0.4 18.7 4.4 5.5 4.8 0.0 0.0' 27.5 0.1' Delay (s) 39.2 16.3 58.8 28.1 47.3 46.5 38.7 31.8 66.3 33.2 Level of Service D B E C D D D' C E C Approach Delay (s) 25.8 31.7 45.9 50.3 Approach 'LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 0.98 t 0.98 0.98 0.98 Volume (vph) 1 183 49 413 861 1 54 0 37 0 0 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1530 2944 1530 3059 1530 1348 1374 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 187 50 421 879 1 55 0 38 0 0 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 203 0 421 880 0 55 4 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 16.0 16.6 31.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 1.0 16.0 16.6 31.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.32 0.33 0.63 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 942 508 1933 129 132 135 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.07 c0.28 c0.29 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.22 0.83 0.46 0.43 0.03 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 12.4 15.4 4.8 21.2 20.4 20.3 Progression Factor 1.20 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 0.5 10.2 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 29.0 6.9 25.6 5.5 22.1 20.4 20.3 Level of Service C A C A C C C Approach Delay (s) 7.0 12.0 21.4 20.3 Approach 'LOS A B C C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 64: Forbes Blvd & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 229 tt 0 615 550 r Volume (vph) 174 138 289 489 85 84 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.6 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.7 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 10.9 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3205 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3205 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 189 150 314 532 92 91 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 392 0 0 59 Lane Group Flow (vph) 189 150 454 0 92 32 Turn Type Prot Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 22.2 12.2 16.1 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 22.2 12.2 16.1 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.48 0,26 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 1697 845 615 550 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.04 c0.14 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.09 0.54 0.15 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 19.6 6.5 14.6 10.4 10.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.9 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 Delay (s) 40.5 6.6 15.3 10.9 10.3 Level of Service D A B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 25.5 15.3 10.6 Approach LOS C B B HCM Average Control Delay 17.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 91: Fobes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.92 0 0.92 t 0.92 0.92 0.92 Volume (vph) 53 226 1 1 511 94 4 0 0 21 0 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3457 1770 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.70 0.76 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 58 246 1 1 555 102 4 0 0 23' 0 82' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 246 0 1 627 0 0 4 0 23' 31 0 Turn Type Prot 0.1 Prot 0.7 0.0 Perm 0.2 Delay (s) Perm 10.6 23.3 Protected 'Phases 7 4 3 8 C B 2 B A 6 A Permitted Phases 14.4 14.2 9.2 2 9.5 Approach LOS 6 B Actuated Green, G' (s) 2.6 16.6 0.7 14.7 17.5 17.5' 17.5 Effective Green, g (s) 2.6 16.6 0.7 14.7 17.5 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.35 0.01 0.31 0.37 0.37' 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 98 1255 26 1086 490 526 592 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.07 0.00 c0.18 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.20 0.04 0.58 0.01 0.04 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 21.6 10.5 22.7 13.4 9.2 9.3 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 30.8 10.6 23.3 14.2 9.2 9.5' 9.5 Level of Service C B C B A A A Approach 'Delay (s) 14.4 14.2 9.2 9.5 Approach LOS B B A A HCM Average Control Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 74 tt 0 747 r Volume (veh /h) 67 143 1020 27 0 200 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 30 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 74 157 1121 30 0 220 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1197 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1151 1362 575 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1136 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 226 vCu, unblocked vol 1151 1362 575 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 88 100 52 cM capacity (veh /h) 603 255 461 Volume Total 74 79 79 747 403 220 Volume Left 74 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 30 220 cSH 603 1700 1700 1700 1700 461 Queue Length 95th (ft) 10 0 0 0 0 63 Control Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.7 Lane LOS B C Approach 'Delay (s) 3.8 0.0 19.7 Approach LOS C Average Delay 3.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes & Allerton 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 145 267 189 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 34 172 47 78 336 6 100 0 109 5 17 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92' Hourly flow rate (vph) 37 187 51 85 365 7 109 0 118 5 18 22 Volume Total (vph) 130 145 267 189 227 46 Volume Left (vph) 37 0 85 0 109 5 Volume Right (vph) 0 51 0 7 118 22 H adj (s) 0.18 -0.21 0,19 0.01 -,0.18 - -0.23 Departure Headway (s) 6.1 5.7 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.9 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.22 0.23 0,44 0.30 0.35 0.07 Capacity (veh /h) 556 598 592 610 601 537 Control Delay (s) 9.6 9.2 12.1 9.9 11.4 9.3 Approach Delay (s) 9.4 11.2 11.4 9.3 Approach 'LOS A B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing + Project Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: 101 SB /Airport Blvd. Off Ramp & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations )y tt tt Volume (vph) 41!4 5 230 0 13 620 497 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3404 3405 1719 3438 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3404 3405 1719 3438 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 440 5 245 0 14 660 529 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 444 0 256 0 0 660 529 0 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 5% 0% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 8 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 18.9 28.9 51.7 83.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.9 28.9 51.7 83.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.26 0.47 0.76 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 585 895 808 2613 v/s Ratio Prot c0 c0.08 c0.38 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.76 0.29 0.82 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 43.4 32.3 25.1 3.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 5.6 0.8 6.4 0.2 Delay (s) 49.0 24.8 31.5 3.9 Level of Service D C C A Approach Delay (s) 49.0 24.8 19.2 0.0 Approach 'LOS D C B A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Sister Cities Blvd. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) tO 0.95 t 0.95 t rr 0.95 tt r Volume (vph) 61 301 22 229 720 64 41 118 127 158 337 416 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 4717 3303 3330 3400 1845 2584' 3242 3505 1539 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 317 23 241 758 67 43 124 134 166 355 438 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 92 0 0 242 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 334 0 241 820 0 43 124 42 166 355 196 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 24.3 3 C C D C Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 4 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 9% 5% 6% 7% 8% 3 % 3% 10 % 8% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Actuated Cycle Length (s) pt+ov' Prot 110.0 Perm' Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 52.9 12.1 56.8 4.0 17.5 34.6 9.5 23.0 23.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 8.2 52.9 12.1 56.8 4.0 17.5 34.6 9.5' 23.0 23.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.48 0.11 0.52 0.04 0.16 0.31 0.09 0.21 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0' 5.0 5.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 131 2268 363 1719 124 294 813 280' 733 322 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.07 c0.07 c0.25 0.01 0.07 0.02 c0.05 0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.15 0.66 0.48 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.59 0.48 0.61 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.17 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.61 0.35 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 0.1 3.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.0 2.1' 0.2 2.1' Delay (s) 49.9 16.1 58.2 10.9 52.3 42.0 26.3 48.0 23.6 15.9 Level of Service D B E B D D C' D C B Approach Delay (s) 21.4 21.6 36.5 24.3 Approach 'LOS C C D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Oyster Point Blvd. & 101 NB On Ramp 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 r 0.98 tt r 0.98 0.98 rr Volume (vph) 178 140 268 1002 625 906 388 100 129 0' 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.91 *1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.93 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 321!3 2941 1274 3471 3438 1822 1559 1623 2707 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 182 143 273 1022 638 924 396 102 132 0 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 107 106 0 0 200 0 0 39 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 182 173 30 1022 638 724 246 252 93 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service 8 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 0.69 8 1 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 3 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 3% 12% 4% 5% 3 % 10 % 5% 5 % 0% 0 % 0% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Split pt+ov' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 41 Permitted' Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 52.1 61.6 61.6 21.4 21.4 77.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 14.5 24.0 24.0 52.1 61.6 61.6 21.4 21.4 77.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.47 0.56 0.56 0.19 0.19 0.70 Clearance' Time (s) 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 424 642 278 1644 1925 1020 303 316 1907' v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.06 0.29 0.19 c0.16 0.16 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.40 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.27 0.11 0.62 0.33 0.71 0.81 0.80 0.05 Progression Factor 0.75 0.70 1.27 0.98 0.77 0.94 0.46 0.46 1.14 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.4 3.5 13.6 11.5 0.0 Delay (s) 33.6 26.0 44.6 22.6 10.4 20.0 33.0 30.9 5.7 Level of Service C C D C B B C C A' Approach Delay (s) 32.5 18.6 26.4 0.0 Approach 'LOS C B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 22.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: 101 NB /Dubuque Off Ramp & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 --r ) r Lane Configurations )y r 0.96 9 0.96 0.96 0.96 rr Volume (vph) 481 13 35 134 2 2 5 39 1226 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3220 1451 1719 1538 1741 1805 1805 2760 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 501 14 36 140 2 2 5 41 1277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 228 Lane Group Flow (vph) 502 3 36 140 2 0 5 41 1049' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% Turn Type Perm custom Prot custom Protected Phases 3 1 6 4 5 2 23 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 24.1 6.0 71.2 1.1 1.1 66.3 93.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 24.1 24.1 6.0 71.2 1.1 1.1 66.3 90.4' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.60 0.82 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 705 318 94 996 17 18 1088 2268 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.02 0.09 c0.00 0.00 0.02 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.01 0.38 0.14 0.12 0.28 0.04 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 33.6 50.2 7.5 54.0 54.1 8.9 2.8' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 0.67 18.74 Incremental Delay,' d2 2.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 2.6 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 42.6 33.6 51.2 7.6 55.1 75.3 6.0 52.8 Level of Service D C D A E E A D Approach Delay (s) 42.4 16.5 55.1 51.5 Approach 'LOS D B E D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Err% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Oyster Point Blvd. & Future 101 NB Ramp /Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4- Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.99 0.99 r rr r Volume (vph) 0 223 46 48 1582 951 0 75 127 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1990 1900 Total Lost time (s) 0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 19 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 *1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 4% 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected Prot 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4895 1752 4988 3221 1610 1541 3827 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 225 46 48 1598 961 0 76 128 27' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 0 48 1598 644 317 19 128 27' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 12 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 4 6' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 0% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Perm 'custom custom' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3 Permitted' Phases' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.2 6.5 63.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 8.1 8.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 52.2 6.5 63.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 8.1 8.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.06 0.57 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.07 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5'' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2323 104 2866 796 398 381 282 115' v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.03 c0.32 c0.20 0.20 c0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.46 0.56 0.81 0.80 0.05 0.45 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 16.1 50.1 14.6 39.0 38.8 31.5 48.8' 48.0' Progression Factor 0.67 1.22 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 1.0 0.6 5.7 9.9 0.0 0.4' 0.4 Delay (s) 10.9 62.3 6.3 44.7 48.7 31.6 49.3 48.4 Level of Service B E A D D C D' D Approach Delay (s) 10.9 8.0 45.0 Approach 'LOS B A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Oyster Point Blvd. & Eccles Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations +I+ tt Volume (vph) 251 39 13 1214 282 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3232 1656 3312 1654 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3232 1656 3312 1654 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 264 41 14 1278 297 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 9 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 296 0 14 1278 306 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% Turn Type Prot Protected Phases 6 58 28 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 40.8 32.4 68.2 24.3 Effective Green, g (s) 40.8 32.4 68.2 24.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.29 0.62 0.22 Clearance' Time (s) 4.5 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1199 488 2053 365 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.01 c0.39 c0.19 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.25 0.03 0.62 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 27.6 12.9 41.0 Progression Factor 0.86 1.93 0.77 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.5 0.0 0.4 14.9 Delay (s) 21.1 53.3 10.4 55.8 Level of Service C D B E Approach Delay (s) 21.1 10.8 55.8 Approach 'LOS C B E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 6 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Oyster Point Blvd. & Gull Dr. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.94 + r 0.94 t 0.94 0.94 0.94 Volume (vph) 1 112 151 16 473 1 630 0 19 2 0 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1743 1450 1656 3311 1656 1461 1586 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.76 1.00 0.97 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 119 161 17 503 1 670 0 20 2 0 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 119 50 17 504 0 670 11 0 0 3 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 1 30.9 HCM Level of Service 1 C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 0.72 4 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 1 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) Heavy Vehicles ( %) 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% 9 % 9% Turn Type' Prot Perm Prot c Critical Lane Group Perm Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 4 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 34.3 34.3 2.8 36.1 60.9 60.9 60.9 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 34.3 34.3 2.8 36.1 60.9 60.9 60.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.33 0.55 0.55 0.55 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 15 543 452 42 1087 729 809 869 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.07 c0.01 c0.15 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.51 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.22 0.11 0.40 0.46 0.92 0.01 0.00 Progression Factor 1.74 0.39 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.7 0.9 0.5 2.3 1.4 16.2 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 94.9 11.9 13.8 55.1 30.7 38.6 11.0 11.0 Level of Service F B B E C D B B Approach Delay (s) 13.3 31.5 37.8 11.0 Approach 'LOS B C D B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.95 + r 0.95 tt r 0.95 + r Volume (vph) 165 49 76 574 177 186 45 333 110 160 306 145 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 0.93' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1599 1282 2648 1660 1391 1577 3154 1321 1369 3007 1318 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 174 52 80 604 186 196 47 351 116 168' 322 153 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 65 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 118 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 226 15 604 186 54 47 351 116 151' 339 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) c0.11 45 0.01 0.04 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) v/c Ratio 0.77 7 0.82 0.40 0.14 3 0.74 0.20 1 0.49 0.12 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 19% 3% 3 % 3 % 3% 10 % 8% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Split 0.92 Perm Split 1.00 Perm Split Incremental Delay,' d2 pt+ov' Split 7.0 Perm' Protected Phases 8 8 4.9' 7 7 Delay (s) 6 6 67 2 2 43.8 Permitted' Phases 38.2 35.7 8 Level of Service D 7 C B B C D B' 2' Actuated Green, G (s) DD 18.3 18.3 27.8 27.8 27.8 15.1 15.1 42.9 22.8 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 293 235 736 461 387 238 476 567 312' 686 301' v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.23 0.11 0.03 c0.11 0.09 0.11 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.06 0.82 0.40 0.14 0.20 0.74 0.20 0.48 0.49 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 33.8 33.8 29.4 27.1 37.1 40.6 17.9' 33.5' 33.6 30..6' Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.47 0.41 0.92 0.95 0.71 1.00 0.99 1.45 Incremental Delay,' d2 11.4 0.1 7.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 5.4 0.1 4.9' 2.3 0.7' Delay (s) 50.3 33.8 25.5 14.5 11.2 34.5 43.8 12.8 38.2 35.7 45.2 Level of Service D C C B B C D B' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 46.0 20.6 36.0 38.5 Approach 'LOS D C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 31.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 8 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Miller Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations r Volume (vph) 0 0 108 244 286 1 112 222 0 0 278 42 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1429 1491 1563 3087 3061 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1429 1491 1563 3087 3061 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 119 268 314 1 123 244 0 0 305 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 119 241 342 0 0 367 0 0 323 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15 % 15% 15 % 15% Turn Type' Over Split Split Protected Phases 1 2 2 1 1 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 16.4 16.4 11.0 10.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.0 16.4 16.4 11.0 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.21 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 489 513 679 649 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.16 c0.22 c0.12 Co 11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.38 0.49 0.67 0.54 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 16.6 13.5 14.4 17.3 17.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.0 3.5 6.7 0.9 0.6 Delay (s) 17.6 17.0 21.2 14.1 18.0 Level of Service B B C B B Approach Delay (s) 17.6 19.4 14.1 18.0 Approach 'LOS B B B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 16: San Mateo Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.99 4+ r 0.99 + r 0.99 0 0.99 tt r Volume (vph) 121 134 200 632 178 389 78 29 191 152 1004 76 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1521 3260 1468 1579 3233 1568 1719 2835 1736 3167 1525 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 122 135 202 638 180 393 79 29 193 154 1014 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 180 0 0 228 0 130 0 0 0 44 Lane Group Flow (vph) 83 174 22 319 499 165 79 92 0 154 1014 33 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 0.15 0.11 c0.05 0.03 0.09 7 v/s Ratio Perm 3 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 4 4 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.57 0.16 0.85 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 8% 4% 10% 4% 3% 3 % 5 % 15% 8 % 4% 14 % 4% Turn Type' Split 36.6' Prot Split Progression Factor Prot Prot 1.00 0.98 Prot 1.47 Perm' Protected Phases 4 4 4 8 8 8 1 6 1.2 5 2 0.0 Permitted' Phases 3.5 0.1' Delay (s) 47.2 44.8 41.9 48.9 34.6 48.1 50.0 23.6 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 9.4 9.4 23.8 23.8 23.8 7.6 32.5 D 18.3 43.2 43.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.08 0.32 0.18 0.43 0.43 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 306 138 376 769 373 131 921 318' 1368 659 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 0.01 c0.20 0.15 0.11 c0.05 0.03 0.09 c0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.57 0.16 0.85 0.65 0.44 0.60 0.10 0.48 0.74 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 43.4 43.4 41.7 36.4 34.3 32.5 44.7 23.5 36.6' 23.7 16..5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.47 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.69 0.62 Incremental Delay,' d2 3.8 1.4 0.2 13.4 1.2 0.3 5.3 0.0 5.0' 3.5 0.1' Delay (s) 47.2 44.8 41.9 48.9 34.6 48.1 50.0 23.6 42.7 19.8 10.4 Level of Service D D D D C D D C D B B Approach Delay (s) 43.9 42.8 30.5 22.0 Approach 'LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 10 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 17: So. Airport Blvd. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 1� r 0.98 0.98 0.98 0 0.98 t r Volume (vph) 34 101 342 103 350 3 494 124 61 7 200 355 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00' 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 0,85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1531 1442 1736 1807 3367 3197 1719 1845 1528 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 35 103 349 105 357 3 504 127 62 7' 204 362 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 49 181 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 229 Lane Group Flow (vph) 35 183 39 105 360 0 504 152 0 7 204 133 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) D 3 C 8 Intersection Summary 3 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 HCM Average Control Delay 2 44.8 HCM Level of Service 3 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 10% 4% 4% 5% 4 % 4 % 7% 5 % 5% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot 100.0 Perm Prot 16.0 Split Intersection Capacity Utilization Split Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 C 1 6 Analysis Period (min) 4 4 15 8 8 Permitted' Phases 2 8' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 17.7 17.7 11.2 24.5 39.6 39.6 15.5 15.5 15.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.4 17.7 17.7 11.2 24.5 39.6 39.6 15.5' 15.5 15.5' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.16 0.16 0.16 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76 271 255 194 443 1333 1266 266' 286 237 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.12 0.06 c0.20 c0.15 0.05 0.00 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.68 0.15 0.54 0.81 0.38 0.12 0.03 0.71 0.56 Progression Factor 0.92 1.12 2.53 1.00 1.00 1.36 1.52 0.67 0.83 1.18 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.6 5.0 0.1 1.7 10.3 0.8 0.2 0.0' 6.5 1.7' Delay (s) 44.7 47.9 88.1 43.6 45.9 30.0 29.3 24.1 39.9 47.9 Level of Service D D F D D C C C D DD Approach Delay (s) 65.8 45.4 29.8 44.7 Approach 'LOS E D C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 11 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: 101 NB On Ramp & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 .4--- t Lane Configurations + r 0.99 t 0.99 tt r )y r Volume (vph) 16 8 12 315 289 15 16 476 153 358 13 188 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00' 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1627 1396 1597 3159 1597 3195 1393 3072 1274 Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 8 12 318 292 15 16 481 155 362 13 190 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 92 4 0 142 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 24 1 318 305 0 16 481 63 390 0 29 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Intersection Summary 10 17 HCM Average Control Delay 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service C 2 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Prot C Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm 15 Perm' Protected Phases 3 3 1 6 5 2 4 Permitted' Phases 3 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.2 4.2 25.2 60.9 4.4 39.6 39.6 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.2 4.2 25.2 60.9 4.4 39.6 39.6 17.0'' 17.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.61 0.04 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.17 Clearance' Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5' 3.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 59 402 1924 70 1265 552 522' 217 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.20 0.10 0.01 c0.15 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.01 0.79 0.16 0.23 0.38 0.11 0.75 0.13 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.28 0.82 0.70 0.59 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.2 0.0 9.7 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.4' 5.1' 0.1' Delay (s) 47.7 45.9 38.7 11.0 38.2 15.7 11.7 44.5 35.4 Level of Service D D D B D B B' D DD Approach Delay (s) 47.1 25.1 15.3 41.7 Approach 'LOS D C B D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: Utah Ave. & So. Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations +' r 0.97 4 r 0.97 tt r 0.97 + Volume (vph) 20 1 13 917 2 222 32 388 69 144 518 1' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.94' 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1605 1392 1517 1522 1383 1597 3195 1345 1597 3194 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 1 13 945 2 229 33 400 71 148 534 1' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 139 0 0 50 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 22 1 472 475 90 33 400 21 148' 535 0' Confl. Peds. (#/hr) B Intersection Summary 2 16 26 HCM Average Control Delay Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 3' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13 % 13% 13 % 13% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Perm Split C Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) Perm Prot Protected Phases 3 3 4 4 5 2 1 6 Permitted' Phases 3 4 2' Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 4.1 36.4 36.4 36.4 4.8 29.6 29.6 13.9 38.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.1 4.1 36.4 36.4 36.4 4.8 29.6 29.6 13.9' 38.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.39 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 66 57 552 554 503 77 946 398 222' 1236 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 0.31 c0.31 0.02 c0.13 c0.09 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.01 0.86 0.86 0.18 0.43 0.42 0.05 0.67 0.43 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.48 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.1 0.0 11.9 12.0 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.3 7.6' 1.0 Delay (s) 47.7 46.0 41.2 41.4 21.7 47.7 29.7 25.4 42.3 11.8 Level of Service D D D D C D C C' D B Approach Delay (s) 47.1 37.5 30.3 18.4 Approach 'LOS D D C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 30.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 20: Grand Ave. & Dubuque Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations ) ttt tO r Volume (vph) 29 290 1362 40 12 67 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 5036 4915 1719 1475 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 5036 4915 1719 1475 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 302 1419 42 12 70 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1 0 0 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 302 1460 0 12 4 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 7 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type' Prot Perm Protected Phases 5 2 6 3 Permitted' Phases 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 86.6 78.2 5.4 5.4 Effective Green, g,(s) 4.4 86.6 78.2 5.4 5.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.87 0.78 0.05 0.05 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 76 4361 3844 93 80 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.06 c0.30 c0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.07 0.38 0.13 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 1.0 3.4 45.1 44.9 Progression Factor 1.27 0.77 0.05 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 60.4 0.8 0.4 45.3 44.9 Level of Service E A A D D Approach Delay (s) 6.2 0.4 45.0 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 21: Grand Ave. & E. Grand Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt'+ ) ttt r Volume (vph) 231 71 34 1!109 290 222 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4704 1770 4472 1641 1503 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4704 1770 4472 1641 1503 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 233 72 34 1120 293 224 RTOR Reduction (vph) 28 0 0 0 0 173 Lane Group Flow (vph) 277 0 34 1120 293 51 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 23 9 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 13 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 2% 16% 10% 5% Turn Type Prot Perm Protected Phases 2 1 6 8 Permitted' Phases 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 60.7 4.5 69.2 22.8 22.8 Effective Green, g (s) 60.7 4.5 69.2 22.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.04 0.69 0.23 0.23 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2855 80 3095 374 343 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.02 c0.25 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.42 0.36 0.78 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 8.2 46.5 6.3 36.3 30.8 Progression Factor 0.60 1.21 0.36 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.1 1.1 0.3 9.5 0.1 Delay (s) 5.0 57.5 2.6 45.8 30.9 Level of Service A E A D C Approach Delay (s) 5.0 4.2 39.4 Approach 'LOS A A D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0' Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: E. Grand Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations ) t ) tt 0.98 0 0.98 t Volume (vph) 93 286 74 159 1070 111 66 45 54 93' 340 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 4794 1671 4516 1641 3157 1752 3459 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 95 292 76 162 1092 113 67 46 55 95' 347 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 34 0 0 10 0 0 48 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 334 0 162 1195 0 67 53 0 95' 352 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 3 13 4 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)' 8 1 4' 4 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 4% 4% 4% 8% 14% 4 % 10 % 3% 3 % 3% 4 % 4% Turn Type' Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted' Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 47.9 13.9 48.2 7.6 13.5 8.7 14.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 13.6 47.9 13.9 48.2 7.6 13.5 8.7' 14.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.48 0.14 0.48 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 2296 232 2177 125 426 152' 505 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.07 c0.10 c0.26 c0.04 0.02 0.05 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.40 0.15 0.70 0.55 0.54 0.13 0.62 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 39.5 14.6 41.1 18.2 44.5 38.1 44.1' 40.6 Progression Factor 0.80 0.65 0.97 0.59 0.90 0.98 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 0.1 5.6 0.8 2.2 0.0 5.7' 3.4 Delay (s) 32.2 9.7 45.7 11.5 42.3 37.4 49.7 44.0 Level of Service C A D B D D D D Approach Delay (s) 14.3 15.5 39.3 45.2 Approach 'LOS B B D D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 16 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.95 0 0.95 t 0.95 0.95 r 0.95 0.95 r Volume (vph) 178 197 63 95 819 19 179 36 28 4 131 342 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2968 2918 1530 3048 1453 1481 1336 1530 1411 1273 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 187 207 66 100 862 20 188 38 29 4 142 360 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 0 32 195 Lane Group Flow (vph) 187 249 0 100 881 0 113 113 4 4 229 46 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 48.0 5 C 1 C 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 100.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 64.4% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 42.8 10.0 40.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 19.0 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g,(s) 12.1 42.8 10.0 40.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 19.0' 19.0 19.0' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.43 0.10 0.41 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.19 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 359 1249 153 1241 177 181 163 291' 268 242 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.09 0.07 c0.29 c0.08 0.08 0.00 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.20 0.65 0.71 0.64 0.62 0.02 0.01 0.86 0.19 Progression Factor 0.95 0.82 0.91 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 1.4 0.4 7.1 3.3 5.5 4.8 0.0 0.0' 21.8 0.1' Delay (s) 40.5 15.1 46.6 25.3 47.3 46.5 38.7 32.9 61.0 34.2 Level of Service D B D C D D D' C E C Approach Delay (s) 25.4 27.5 45.9 48.0 Approach 'LOS C C D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 17 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: E. Grand Ave. & Littlefield Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.98 0 0.98 t 0.98 0.98 0.98 Volume (vph) 1 179 49 401 833 1 54 0 36 0' 0 2 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1530 2942 1530 3059 1530 1348 1374 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 183 50 409 850 1 55 0 37 0 0 2 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1 199 0 409 851 0 55 4 0 0 0 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 1 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% 18 % 18% Turn Type' Prot Prot Perm Perm' Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted' Phases' 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 16.4 16.2 31.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 Effective Green, g,(s) 1.0 16.4 16.2 31.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.33 0.32 0.63 0.10 0.10 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 31 965 496 1933 129 132 135 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.07 c0.27 c0.28 0.00 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.21 0.82 0.44 0.43 0.03 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 12.1 15.6 4.7 21.2 20.4 20.3 Progression Factor 1.20 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.2 0.5 10.2 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 29.0 7.0 25.8 5.4 22.1 20.4 20.3 Level of Service C A C A C C C Approach Delay (s) 7.1 12.0 21.4 20.3 Approach 'LOS A B C C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 18 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 64: Forbes Blvd & Gull 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 229 tt 0 615 550 r Volume (vph) 160 138 289 489 85 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.7 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 10.9 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3205 B 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 Approach LOS 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3205 1770 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 174 150 314 532 92 89 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 392 0 0 58 Lane Group Flow (vph) 174 150 454 0 92 31 Turn Type Prot Perm Protected 'Phases 7 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 22.2 12.2 16.1 16.1 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 22.2 12.2 16.1 16.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.48 0,26 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 1697 845 615 550 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.04 c0.14 c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.09 0.54 0.15 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 6.5 14.6 10.4 10.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 13.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.2 Delay (s) 32.9 6.6 15.3 10.9 10.2 Level of Service C A B B B Approach 'Delay (s) 20.7 15.3 10.6 Approach LOS C B B HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 19 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 91: Fobes & Eccles 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.92 0 0.92 t 0.92 0.92 0.92 Volume (vph) 53 217 1 1 467 64 4 0 0 15 0 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3537 1770 3475 1770 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.70 0.76 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 58 236 1 1 508 70 4 0 0 16 0 82' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 1 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 236 0 1 556 0 0 4 0 16' 32 0 Turn Type Prot 0.1 Prot 0.5 0.0 Perm 0.2 Delay (s) Perm 11.1 22.0 Protected 'Phases 7 4 3 8 F B 2 B A 6 A Permitted Phases 25.0 13.6 8.2 2 8.5 Approach LOS 6 C Actuated Green, G' (s) 1.7 14.2 0.7 13.2 17.5 17.5' 17.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.7 14.2 0.7 13.2 17.5 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.32 0.02 0.30 0.39 0.39' 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 68 1131 28 1033 517 555 624 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.07 0.00 c0.16 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.21 0.04 0.54 0.01 0.03 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 11.0 21.5 13.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 60.8 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 Delay (s) 82.0 11.1 22.0 13.6 8.2 8.3' 8.5 Level of Service F B C B A A A Approach 'Delay (s) 25.0 13.6 8.2 8.5 Approach LOS C B A A HCM Average Control Delay 16.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 44.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 20 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations 68 tt 0 747 r Volume (veh /h) 62 143 1020 26 0 160 Sign Control 0 Free Free Stop 0 Grade 29 0% 0% 0% 1700 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 68 157 1121 29 0 176 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 2 Upstream signal (ft) 1197 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1149 1350 575 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 1135 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 215 vCu, unblocked vol 1149 1350 575 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 89 100 62 cM capacity (veh /h) 604 256 461 Volume Total 68 79 79 747 402 176 Volume Left 68 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 29 176 cSH 604 1700 1700 1700 1700 461 Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 0 0 0 44 Control Delay (s) 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 Lane LOS B C Approach 'Delay (s) 3.5 0.0 17.5 Approach LOS C Average Delay 2.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes & Allerton 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 141 266 189 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 34 165 47 77 335 6 100 0 101 5 17 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92' Hourly flow rate (vph) 37 179 51 84 364 7 109 0 110 5 18 22 Volume Total (vph) 127 141 266 189 218 46 Volume Left (vph) 37 0 84 0 109 5 Volume Right (vph) 0 51 0 7 110 22 H adj (s) 0.18 -0.22 0,19 0.01 -,0.17 - -0.23 Departure Headway (s) 6.1 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.8 Degree Utilization, 'x 0.21 0.22 0,43 0.30 0.33 0.07 Capacity (veh /h) 560 603 596 615 601 543 Control Delay (s) 9.5 9.0 12.0 9.8 11.2 9.3 Approach Delay (s) 9.2 11.1 11.2 9.3 Approach 'LOS A B B A HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.1% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing Conditions 5:00 pm 27/09/2011494 Forbes Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 r 0.97 Volume (vph) 22 694 95 178 164 13 66 9 145 26 13 11' Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3475 1770 3501 1784 1583 1762 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 23 715 98 184 169 13 68 9 149 27 13 11' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 98 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 23 804 0 184 177 0 0 77 51 0' 43 0 Turn Type Prot 1.1 1.1 Prot 0.8 0.1 Split Delay (s) pm+ov Split 25.5 Protected 'Phases 1 6 33.1 5 2 B 8 8 5 4 4 Permitted Phases 6 18.0 19.7 33.1 Approach LOS 8 B Actuated Green, G' (s) 7.2 25.1 C 14.1 32.0 9.4 23.5' 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 25.1 14.1 32.0 9.4 23.5 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.36 0.20 0.46 0.14 0.34 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185 1264 362 1624 243 539 112 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.23 c0.10 0.05 c0.04 0.02 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.12 0.64 0.51 0.11 0.32 0.09 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 18.2 24.4 10.4 26.9 15.5 31.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 2.2 Delay (s) 28.3 19.2 25.5 10.5 27.7 15.6' 33.1 Level of Service C B C B C B C Approach 'Delay (s) 19.5 18.0 19.7 33.1 Approach LOS B B B C HCM Average Control Delay 19.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 69.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 28: Forbes Blvd. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 r 0.97 Volume (vph) 13 191 31 137 818 34 79 15 175 8 19 27 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3366 1719 3418 1736 1538 1675 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 13 197 32 141 843 35 81 15 180 8 20 28' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 110 0 26 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 13 216 0 141 875 0 0 96 70 0 30 0 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split custom Split Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 8 8 4 4 Permitted' Phases 6 2' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 18.0 8.0 19.5 4.8 19.5 3.6 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 18.0 8.0 19.5 4.8 19.5' 3.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.36 0.16 0.39 0.10 0.39 0.07 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 222 1202 273 1322 165 595 120 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.06 c0.08 c0.26 c0.06 c0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.18 0.52 0.66 0.58 0.12 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 11.1 19.4 12.7 21.8 9.9' 22.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.3 5.1 0.1 1.1 Delay (s) 19.4 11.2 21.1 14.0 27.0 10.0 23.2 Level of Service ZB B C B C B C Approach Delay (s) 11.6 15.0 15.9 23.2 Approach 'LOS B B B C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 249 422 86 240 156 73 35 453 215 776 527 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.99 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3057 3060 1660 1385 1533 3065 1371 3001' 2963 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 257 435 89 247 161 75 36 467 222 800 543 133 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 21 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 772 0 247 161 8 36 467 222 800 655 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) C Intersection Summary 45 HCM Average Control Delay 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 7 D 3 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 6 % 6% 6 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Split E Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) pt+ov' Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.6 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.5 16.2 27.6 33.8 39.5 Effective Green, g,(s) 28.6 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.5 16.2 27.6 33.8' 39.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.15 0.26 0.32 0.37 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 825 329 179 149 152 468 357 957' 1104 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.08 c0.10 0.02 c0.15 0.16 c0.27 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.75 0.90 0.05 0.24 1.00 0.62 0.84 0.59 Progression Factor 1.00 1.24 1.24 2.34 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.82 0.92 Incremental Delay,' d2 17.5 9.2 39.2 0.2 0.7 39.2 2.7 5.7' 2.1 Delay (s) 55.3 66.3 97.2 99.5 41.6 80.8 35.5 33.2 26.8 Level of Service E E F F D F D' C C Approach Delay (s) 55.3 81.8 65.0 30.3 Approach 'LOS E F E C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 50.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 106.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 30/09/20112035 + Project A.M. Peak MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 4M 0.97 + r 0.97 tt r 0.97 0.97 Volume (vph) 192 153 76 826 570 233 45 527 170 243 361 146 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 0.98 Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2973 3060 1660 1392 1562 3124 1398 3001' 2896 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 198 158 78 852 588 240 46 543 175 251' 372 151' RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 37 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 418 0 852 588 105 46 543 175 251' 486 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) E Intersection Summary 45 HCM Average Control Delay 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) HCM Level of Service 7 D 3 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1 1' Heavy Vehicles ( %) 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3 % 4 % 4% 4 % 5% 5 % 5% Turn Type' Split ICU Level of Service Split E Perm Prot Analysis Period (min) pt+ov' Prot Protected Phases 8 8 7 7 1 6 67 5 2 Permitted' Phases 7 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.6 47.5 47.5 47.5 8.7 26.0 77.5 11.9 29.2 Effective Green, g,(s) 18.6 47.5 47.5 47.5 8.7 26.0 77.5 11.9' 29.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.22 0.65 0.10 0.24 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 1211 657 551 113 677 903 298' 705 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.28 c0.35 0.03 c0.17 0.13 c0.08 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.70 0.89 0.19 0.41 0.80 0.19 0.84 0.69 Progression Factor 1.00 1.17 1.17 2.34 1.04 1.02 1.20 1.15 0.94 Incremental Delay,' d2 21.2 1.5 12.1 0.1 2.2 6.2 0.1 18.2' 5.2 Delay (s) 71.0 36.9 51.7 55.6 57.3 51.5 10.4 79.5 43.8 Level of Service E D D E E D B E D Approach Delay (s) 71.0 44.8 42.4 55.4 Approach 'LOS E D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 49.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 29/09/20112035 + Project P.M. Peak MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report DRR CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt 0 r Volume (vph) 239 1423 204 14 0 54 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3438 3374 1550 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Setd. Flow (perm) 1719 3438 3374 1550 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 246 1467 210 14 0 56 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 8 0 0 48 Lane Group Flow (vph) 246 1467 216 0 0 8 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.3 28.8 10.5 5.7 Effective Green, g,(s) 14.3 28.8 10.5 5.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.68 0.25 0.13 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 578 2330 834 208 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.43 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.63 0.26 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 10.9 3.9 12.9 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 Delay (s) 11.4 4.4 13.0 16.1 Level of Service ZB A B B Approach Delay (s) 5.4 13.0 16.1 Approach 'LOS A B B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 42.5 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case + Project MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: E. Grand Ave. & Allerton Ave. 13/10/2011 Lane Configurations tt 0 r Volume (vph) 62 196 1272 26 0 178 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 3461 1596 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Setd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 3461 1596 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 202 1311 27 0 184 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 3 0 0 155 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 202 1335 0 0 29 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot custom Protected Phases 7 4 8 Permitted' Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 2.0 33.3 27.3 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 2.0 33.3 27.3 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.73 0.60 0.10 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 77 2554 2068 154 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.06 c0.39 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.08 0.65 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 21.7 1.8 6.0 19.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 > 50.4 0.0 0.7 0.6 Delay (s) 72.1 1.8 6.7 19.6 Level of Service E A A B Approach Delay (s) 18.7 6.7 19.6 Approach 'LOS B A B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm PM 2015 + Project Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 625 1622 235 22 273 86 131 127 103 183 153 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 1.00 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3428 1752 3367 1665 1744 1531 1752 3290 1396 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 644 1672 242 23 281 89 135 131 106 189' 158 98 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 25 0 0 0 93 0 10 65 Lane Group Flow (vph) 644 1906 0 23 345 0 121 145 13 189' 169 12 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 41.9 5 D 1 B 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 100.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 91.0% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.5 53.8 2.4 31.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 15.1 15.1 15.1 Effective Green, g,(s) 24.5 53.8 2.4 31.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 15.1' 15.1 15.1' Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.54 0.02 0.32 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.15 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 833 1844 42 1067 211 221 194' 265' 497 211 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.56 0.01 c0.10 0.07 c0.08 c0.11 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01' v/c Ratio 0.77 1.03 0.55 0.32 0.57 0.66 0.07 0.71 0.34 0.06 Progression Factor 0.74 0.91 0.55 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 0.4 17.5 7.6 0.8 2.3 5.3 0.1 7.4 0.1 0.0' Delay (s) 26.6 38.5 34.1 12.8 43.4 46.8 38.5 47.7 38.1 36.4 Level of Service C D C B D D D' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 35.5 14.1 43.4 41.9 Approach 'LOS D B D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 34.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 28/09/20112015 Base Case + Project MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: E. Grand Ave. & Forbes Blvd. 13/10/2011 � � i Lane Configurations 0.97 0 0.97 t 0.97 0.97 r 0.97 t r Volume (vph) 203 349 98 105 1348 182 299 164 31 113 211 419 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00' 0.99 0.98' Flpb, ped /bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 3370 1736 3403 1665 1726 1532 1752 3070 1393 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 209 3610 101 108 1390 188 308 169 32 116 218 432 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 8 0 0 0 21 0 128 128 Lane Group Flow (vph) 209 442 0 108 1570 0 234 243 11 116 306 88 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 51.8 5 C 1 D 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Intersection Summary 15 3 2 Heavy Vehicles ( %) 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4 % 3 % 3% 3 % 3% 3 % 3% Turn Type' Prot Prot Split Actuated Cycle Length (s) Perm Split 120.0 Perm' Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8 8 87.5% 4 4 Permitted' Phases Analysis Period (min) 15 8' 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 52.0 15.1 55.7 20.3 20.3 20.3 16.6 16.6 16.6 Effective Green, g,(s) 11.4 52.0 15.1 55.7 20.3 20.3 20.3 16.6 16.6 16.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.43 0.13 0.46 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.14 Clearance' Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0' Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 323 1460 218 1580 282 292 259 242' 425 193 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.13 0.06 c0.46 0.14 c0.14 0.07 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.30 0.50 0.99 0.83 0.83 0.04 0.48 0.72 0.46 Progression Factor 0.94 0.70 0.83 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,' d2 4.2 0.5 0.6 19.6 17.2 17.3 0.0 0.5' 5.1 0.6' Delay (s) 53.7 16.1 41.2 42.9 65.4 65.5 41.7 48.3 54.5 48.2 Level of Service D B D D E E D' D D DD Approach Delay (s) 27.8 42.8 63.9 51.8 Approach 'LOS C D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group 494 Forbes 5:00 pm 13/10/2011 PM 2015 + Project MITIGATED Synchro 7 - Report DRR/CTG Page 1