Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix A_revised TIA
Appendix A: Revised Appendix 4.15-1, Revised Transportation Impact Analysis Southline Transportation Impact Analysis Prepared for: City of South San Francisco and ICF April 2022 SF20-1089 Table of Contents 1. Project Description ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Transportation Demand Management Program ...................................................................................................... 6 2. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Environmental Setting......................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Transit Facilities and Service ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Regional Transit and Shuttle Service ................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................................................................12 3. Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................ 16 3.1 Recent Changes to CEQA ................................................................................................................................................16 3.2 Significance Criteria ...........................................................................................................................................................17 3.2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) .............................................................................................................................17 3.2.2 Design Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................18 3.2.3 Emergency Vehicle Access ..................................................................................................................................18 3.2.4 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit .........................................................................................................................18 3.3 Analysis Scenarios...............................................................................................................................................................19 3.3.1 Existing Conditions (Pre-COVID-19) ................................................................................................................19 3.3.2 2024 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................................19 3.3.3 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions...........................................................................................20 3.3.4 Cumulative 2040 Conditions ..............................................................................................................................20 3.3.5 Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Conditions .....................................................................................................21 3.4 Travel Demand Model Methodology .........................................................................................................................21 3.5 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment ......................................................................................................21 3.5.1 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................22 3.5.2 Project Vehicle Trip Distribution, and Project Vehicle Trip Assignment ...........................................27 3.6 Multimodal Analysis Methodology .............................................................................................................................38 4. Transportation Analysis .......................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Plan & Policy Consistency Review ................................................................................................................................39 4.1.1 City of South San Francisco Plans and Policies ...........................................................................................39 4.1.2 City of San Bruno Plans and Policies ...............................................................................................................42 4.1.3 Regional Plans and Policies .................................................................................................................................44 4.1.4 Policy Consistency Analysis .................................................................................................................................45 4.2 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................46 4.3 Site Plan Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................48 4.3.1 Multimodal Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................48 4.3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................................................53 4.3.3 Phase 1 At-Grade Rail Crossing Analysis .......................................................................................................53 4.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis .....................................................................................................................................55 4.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................................................55 4.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing Analysis .....................................................................................................................56 4.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis .............................................................................................................................59 4.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis .........................................................................................................................62 4.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis ................................................................................................................................62 5. Impacts and Mitigations......................................................................................................... 63 5.1 Vehicular Traffic ...................................................................................................................................................................63 5.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled ..........................................................................................................................................63 5.2 Design Hazards ....................................................................................................................................................................64 5.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards ..................................................................................................................................64 5.2.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing .......................................................................................................................................64 5.2.3 At-Grade Rail Crossings ........................................................................................................................................64 5.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant ............................................................................................................................................65 5.3 Emergency Vehicle Access ..............................................................................................................................................66 5.4 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit .....................................................................................................................................67 6. Partial Circulation Network Alternative ............................................................................... 69 6.1 Plan and Policy Consistency Analysis ..........................................................................................................................69 6.2 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................69 6.3 Site Plan Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................70 6.3.1 Design Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................70 6.3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................................................70 6.3.3 At-Grade Rail Crossing Analysis ........................................................................................................................70 6.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis .....................................................................................................................................73 6.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................................................73 6.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queueing Analysis ...................................................................................................................73 6.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis .............................................................................................................................76 6.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis .........................................................................................................................76 6.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis ................................................................................................................................78 6.5 Impacts and Mitigations ..................................................................................................................................................78 6.5.1 Vehicular Traffic .......................................................................................................................................................78 6.5.2 Design Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................78 6.5.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit .........................................................................................................................82 7. Reduced Underground Parking Alternative ......................................................................... 85 7.1 Plan and Policy Consistency Analysis ..........................................................................................................................86 7.2 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................86 7.3 Site Plan Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................86 7.3.1 Signal Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................................................87 7.3.2 At-Grade Rail Crossing Analysis ........................................................................................................................87 7.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis .....................................................................................................................................87 7.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................................................87 7.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queueing Analysis ...................................................................................................................89 7.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis .............................................................................................................................89 7.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis .........................................................................................................................89 7.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis ................................................................................................................................89 7.5 Impacts and Mitigations ..................................................................................................................................................89 7.5.1 Vehicular Traffic .......................................................................................................................................................89 7.5.2 Design Hazards ........................................................................................................................................................90 7.5.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit .........................................................................................................................93 Appendices • Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Analysis • Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum • Traffic Operations Reports List of Figures Figure 1-1. Project Location & Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1-2. Project Site Plan – Phase 1......................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1-3. Project Site Plan – Buildout ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-1. Transit Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-2. Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-3 Pedestrian Circulation Barriers ............................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-1. Vehicle Trip Distribution – Summary by County ............................................................................................ 28 Figure 3-2. Phase 1 Trip Distribution/Assignment – AM Peak Hour ............................................................................. 29 Figure 3-3. Phase 1 Trip Distribution/Assignment – PM Peak Hour ............................................................................. 30 Figure 3-4. Project Buildout Trip Distribution/Assignment – AM Peak Hour ............................................................ 31 Figure 3-5. Project Buildout Trip Distribution/Assignment – PM Peak Hour ............................................................ 32 Figure 3-6. Phase 1 Volume Difference – AM Peak Hour .................................................................................................. 33 Figure 3-7. Phase 1 Volume Difference – PM Peak Hour .................................................................................................. 34 Figure 3-8. Project Buildout Volume Difference – AM Peak Hour ................................................................................. 35 Figure 3-9. Project Buildout Volume Difference – PM Peak Hour ................................................................................. 36 Figure 3-10. Study Locations ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 4-1. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) – Proposed Streets .................................................................. 39 Figure 4-2 Project Improvement Locations ............................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 4-3. Pedestrian Space during AM and PM Peak Hours ........................................................................................ 51 Figure 6-1. Partial Circulation Network Alternative Site Plan .......................................................................................... 71 Figure 6-2. Pedestrian Space during AM and PM Peak Hours, Project Buildout with Partial Circulation Network Alternative ................................................................................................................................................ 77 Figure 7-1. Reduced Underground Parking Alternative Site Plan .................................................................................. 88 List of Tables Table 1-1. Project Land Use by Phase, Office Scenario ......................................................................................................... 2 Table 2-1. BART and SamTrans Service at the San Bruno BART Station ..................................................................... 10 Table 3-1. Person Trip Generation | Phase 1 .......................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3-2. Vehicle Trip Generation | Phase 1 .......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 3-3. Person Trip Generation | Project Buildout .......................................................................................................... 26 Table 3-4. Vehicle Trip Generation | Project Buildout ......................................................................................................... 27 Table 4-1. VMT Effects of Southline Avenue Extension within South San Francisco and San Bruno .............. 48 Table 4-2: Pedestrian Space Crowding Scale ......................................................................................................................... 49 Table 4-3: Signal Warrant Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Table 4-4. Queuing at Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing – 2040 Project Buildout ...................................... 55 Table 4-5. Existing and 2024 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues..................................... 57 Table 4-6. 2040 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues .............................................................. 58 Table 4-7. Average ECR Travel Times between El Camino Real and the San Bruno BART Station ................... 60 Table 4-8. Project Buildout Effect on Total Activity at San Bruno BART Station ...................................................... 61 Table 6-1. Queuing at Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing – Partial Circulation Network Alternative (2040 Project Buildout) ........................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 6-2. Queuing at Scott Street At-Grade Rail Crossing – Partial Circulation Network Alternative (2040 Project Buildout) ....................................................................................................................................................... 73 Table 6-3. Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues – Partial Circulation Network Alternative (Phase 1) ............................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 6-4. Cumulative Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues - Partial Circulation Network Alternative (Project Buildout) ............................................................................................................ 75 Table 7-1. Phase 1 Project vs. Reduced Underground Parking Alternative ............................................................... 85 Appendix Table: VMT Totals for GHG Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 96 Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 1 1. Project Description This transportation impact analysis (TIA) evaluates potential transportation effects associated with the Southline Specific Plan and associated transportation infrastructure changes (“Project”). The Project would redevelop a 26.5-acre industrial site in the City of South San Francisco’s Lindenville District, adjacent to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail station. The Project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct a transit-oriented office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet. New development would include about 2.8 million square feet of office/R&D and amenity space serving up to about 11,000 employees; approximately 4,594 to 5,769 parking spaces; a new east-west street connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue (referred to as “Southline Avenue”); supportive utilities and related infrastructure; and open space. The Project would also modify off-site transportation infrastructure including constructing a new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station; providing a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station with new bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks. Most of this off-site transportation infrastructure is located within the City of South San Francisco; however, certain improvements, including portions of the new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, and Maple Avenue, are located in the City of San Bruno. Development associated with the Project would be implemented under the proposed Southline Specific Plan, which would establish new land use development standards and design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan extents. A phased development process for buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated. Phase 1 would include construction of the new Southline Avenue east-west connection road described above and the following development, most of which will be development south of the new Southline Avenue: two new office/R&D buildings with a total building area of up to approximately 613,000 square feet; the four-story, approximately 88,000-square foot amenity building (with some ground floor uses open to the public); approximately 1,103 to 1,379 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and the eastern portion of a parking structure (located north of the new Southline Avenue); and landscaping and open space amenities. Phase 1 also includes the majority of the onsite and off-site infrastructure, roadway and pedestrian/bicycle circulation improvements. The remaining development allowed under the Specific Plan is anticipated to occur in later phases. As a transit-oriented development fully within a ½ mile walkshed of the San Bruno BART Station and SamTrans ECR bus route, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact under the City of South San Francisco’s adopted VMT Thresholds (City Council Resolution 77-2020). VMT analysis is presented in Section 4.2. Project land use and infrastructure by development Phase 1s shown in Table 1-1. The Project location and study area, Phase 1 Project site plan, and Project Buildout site plan are shown in Figure 1-1, Figure 1-2, and Figure 1-3, respectively. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 2 Table 1-1. Project Land Use by Phase, Office Scenario Scenario Phase 1 Future Phases Total at Buildout Office / R&D 612,715 2,099,085 2,711,800 Public Restaurant/Retail 16,400 0 16,400 Cafeteria (Private) 9,000 0 9,000 Fitness Center (Private) 49,000 0 49,000 Auditorium/Other (Private) 13,800 0 13,800 Total Active Land Use 700,915 2,099,085 2,800,000 Vehicle Parking Stalls 1,103 to 1,379 3,491 to 4,390 4,594 to 5,769 Long-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces 188 572 760 Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces 18 42 60 Notes: 1. The Project includes two land use scenarios – an office use and a life science use. For purposes of this analysis, the office use was analyzed to reflect a land use with a higher trip generation and more employees. 2. The ground floor restaurant/retail would be a public use. All other amenity uses would be for the private use of Project tenants. Source: ICF, 2020. CrestmoorCanyon 3101 W e s t O rangeAven ueC h e stnutAv Sout h Ai r port Boul evar dWestbor ough B lEl Cami no Real S a n B ru n o A v e n u e W e s t yW robraHSouth Linden AvenueEl Cami noRea l O rangeAvenueGrand Avenue Hunti ngtonAvNorthMcdonnell RoadC o u n tryC lubDr ive DubuqueAvUt a h A ven u eGatewayBlSneath La n e Linden AvSan Bruno Avenue EastSouthSpruceAvenueProduceAvEa stG randAv eunevA oetaM naSCher r y AvDor a do Wy Crestwood Dri veSpruce AvenueA valo n D rive MitchellAvenue ·82 %&280 %&380 14 15 17 24 31 20 26 25 27 18 19 22 23 11 16 28 13 10 87 2 3 1 4 29 30 12 6 9 21 \\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxdProject LocationFigure 1-1 Project Site New Street - Southline Avenue City Boundary Caltrain Station BART Station South Maple AvenueHun�ng t on AvenueSea Sco� St Miller A v Baden A v Bis cui t Av Ai rport Bl San Mateo AvSan Bruno South San Francisco DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN LINDENVILLE BAYHILL TanforanShopping Center OrangeMemorial Park 0.5 mi Site Plan Figure 1-2\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Project Buildout Site Plan Figure 1-3\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 6 1.1 Transportation Demand Management Program The Project includes a transportation demand management (TDM) program designed to reduce the Project’s single-occupancy vehicle trips and parking demand consistent with the goals set forth in the City’s municipal code. The Project Sponsor has developed a Preliminary TDM program designed to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share, consistent with City requirements for projects proposing a floor area ratio (FAR) up to 2.5 (per Chapter 20.400 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance). The preliminary TDM Plan includes a number of program measures to build upon the proposed infrastructure and on-site facilities in order to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips to meet the required 45 percent alternative mode share target. The specific measures have not been determined as they will depend significantly on tenant needs, market and technological conditions at the time of development, and in some instances, review and approval of other agencies. Project-specific Draft TDM Plans will be required for each project phase as part of the entitlements approval, and Final TDM Plans will be provided as part of the building permit process. TDM measures may include: • Direct Access to Transit – The Project’s access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station and SamTrans Transit Center enable convenient use of BART and bus service. • Shuttle Service to Caltrain – The TDM program may provide first/last mile shuttle service for employees to the South San Francisco and/or San Bruno Caltrain stations. • Carpooling & Vanpooling Services – The TDM program would offer ride-matching services for carpools and vanpools users thorough 511.org and/or other programs; and provide reserved parking spaces for such vehicles. • Other TDM program features – The TDM program would include a range of features such as a computer app-based commute monitoring system, carshare program; guaranteed ride home program; onsite kiosks and information boards displaying transportation options available for employees; onsite showers and changing rooms; and TDM coordinator(s). As required by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, the Final TDM Plan would include requirements for monitoring and auditing the performance of the measures, which may be revised or amended as needed to meet the TDM performance objectives. Implementation of the Final TDM Plan would be monitored annually and adjusted accordingly, if necessary, in order to meet the required mode share targets. Leases for all tenants would include provisions regarding the mandatory TDM measures and appointment of a TDM coordinator (which may be shared among multiple tenants). Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 7 2. Existing Conditions This section describes the existing transportation and circulation setting in the vicinity of the Project site: the existing roadway network, transit network and service, pedestrian conditions, and bicycle conditions. Descriptions provided in this section reflect conditions prior to changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in reduced travel and changes to transit services. 2.1 Environmental Setting The Project site is transit-oriented, located within proximity to the San Bruno BART station (across Huntington Avenue) and the South San Francisco and San Bruno Caltrain stations (both within one mile of the Project site). The Project site is located at the northeast corner of the Sneath Avenue and Huntington Avenue intersection in the City of South San Francisco at the city’s boundary with the City of San Bruno. Under existing conditions, the Project site is not accessible from Huntington Avenue, as there is no vehicular connection to Tanforan Avenue. Instead, regional access to the site under existing conditions is provided via US-101 and I-380, with vehicles connecting to Maple Avenue, Dollar Avenue, or South Linden Avenue via surface streets. Figure 1-1 shows the Project location and the surrounding roadway system. The Project includes construction of a new street (Southline Avenue) connecting the Project site to Huntington Boulevard at the intersection with Sneath Avenue. Key local roadways in the vicinity of the Project are described below: • I-380 is an approximately 1.7-mile eight-lane freeway linking I-280 to the west and US-101 to the east. I-380 is located approximately one half-mile south of the Project site and provides the closest freeway access to the Project via El Camino Real (SR-82). Near the Project, I-380 carries about 170,000 vehicles per day. • I-280 is an eight-lane north-south freeway connection between San Francisco to San Jose that follows the western urbanized edge of the San Francisco Peninsula. At the freeway’s north and south endpoints, the route directly serves Daly City, Colma, and southwestern San Francisco neighborhoods. I-280 is located approximately 1.25 miles west of the Project site. Near the Project, I-280 carries about 200,000 vehicles per day. I-280 may be accessed via ramps at Sneath Lane and San Bruno Avenue. • US-101 is an eight-lane freeway and principle north-south roadway connection between San Francisco, San Jose, and intermediate San Francisco Peninsula cities. US-101 is located approximately one half-mile east of the Project site. Near the Project, US-101 carries about 265,000 vehicles per day. US-101 may be accessed via ramps at San Bruno Avenue, Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard, and Grand Avenue. • El Camino Real (SR-82) is a north-south arterial roadway and State Highway that spans the San Francisco Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 8 Project site and connects with I-380 approximately one half mile from the Project site, providing regional vehicle access in all directions. El Camino Real carries about 45,000 vehicles per day. • Huntington Avenue is a north-south arterial and local roadway within the City of San Bruno that parallels the Caltrain corridor between Sneath Lane to the north San Felepe Avenue to the south. The San Bruno General Plan classifies the roadway as an arterial between Sneath Lane and San Mateo Avenue and as a local street south of San Mateo Avenue. Huntington Avenue East is a one- way residential street that runs alongside Huntington Avenue. • South Linden Avenue is a north-south collector roadway within the City of South San Francisco that connects Downtown South San Francisco to the north at Airport Boulevard with the Lindenville Area and the City of San Bruno to the south at San Mateo Avenue. South Linden Avenue includes an at- grade rail crossing of Caltrain. • Sneath Lane is an east-west local and arterial roadway within the City of San Bruno that connects Sweeny Ridge open space to the west and Huntington Avenue to the East. The road intersects and provides access to three major north-south regional roadways: Skyline Boulevard (SR-35), I-280, and El Camino Real (SR-82) and is one of the primary Project access roadways. The City of San Bruno General Plan classifies the roadway as an arterial east of SR-35 and a local street to the west of SR-35. • San Bruno Avenue is a four-lane east-west arterial roadway within the City of San Bruno. San Bruno Avenue provides freeway access to both I-280 and US 101. • South Maple Avenue is a two lane north-south collector street within South San Francisco that primarily provides access to destinations within the Lindenville industrial district between South Canal Street to the north and Tanforan Avenue to the south. The roadway will provide direct access to the Project site’s northern and western edges and connect with Southline Avenue and Huntington Avenue. • Dollar Avenue and Herman Street comprise a two lane north-south collector street within the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno, respectively, alongside the Caltrain railroad corridor and eastern edge of the Project site. Dollar Avenue and Herman Street function as the primary connection between Lindenville and the City of San Bruno to the west of the Caltrain railroad corridor, connecting to South Linden Avenue and Huntington Avenue. • Scott Street is a two lane, east-west local street in the City of San Bruno connecting Herman Street and San Mateo Avenue. Scott Street includes an at-grade rail crossing of Caltrain. • Tanforan Avenue is a two lane, local street at the border of South San Francisco and San Bruno that connects Maple Avenue and Dollar Avenue/Herman Street. Tanforan Avenue serves a mix of local residential trips and truck traffic to industrial sites in Lindenville. • Southline Avenue (South Linden Avenue Extension) is identified in the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan as a new, approximately 1,500-foot long roadway connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue. The Project includes the roadway alignment as envisioned in the General Plan. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 9 2.2 Transit Facilities and Service The Project site is directly served by the San Bruno BART station located across Huntington Avenue, and SamTrans buses at the San Bruno BART Transit Center, which is within one half mile from all buildings on the Project site. The Project is within about three-quarters of one mile of the San Bruno Caltrain station and 1.5 mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station as well. The existing transit services are shown on Figure 2-1 and described in detail below. 2.2.1 Regional Transit and Shuttle Service The following transit services operate within the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno: • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County, connecting between San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. The San Bruno Station is located adjacent to the Project site. During weekday peak commute periods, the station is served by the Richmond- Millbrae and Antioch-San Francisco International Airport lines, both of which operate on 15-minute headways with a combined headway of 7.5 minutes throughout the day. During off-peak periods, the station is served by the Antioch-San Francisco International Airport line which operates every 20 minutes. • Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose, and limited service trains to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. Caltrain operates five trains per hour, per direction during peak periods. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project is currently under construction to increase Caltrain service levels to six trains per hour per direction during peak periods, to provide faster, more frequent service. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project is anticipated to be completed by 2022. The Project site is near two Caltrain stations: ◦ South San Francisco Caltrain Station: The station is currently located approximately 1.5 mile north of the Project site at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of US-101, immediately north of East Grand Avenue. In 2021, Caltrain plans to open a relocated South San Francisco Caltrain Station near the Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection. The South San Francisco Caltrain station will be served by 23 northbound and 23 southbound local or limited trains during a typical weekday. Service is expected to increase upon completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project in 2022. ◦ San Bruno Caltrain Station: The station is located approximately three-quarter miles directly south of the Project site at the intersection of San Bruno Avenue and Huntington Avenue, within Downtown San Bruno. The station is served by 26 northbound and 26 southbound local or limited trains during a typical weekday. Service is expected to increase upon completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project in 2022. • SamTrans provides bus service in San Mateo County and serves the Project site. The SamTrans Transit Center is located at the San Bruno BART station, located adjacent to the Project site. The Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 10 SamTrans Transit Center is located less than one-half mile from all proposed buildings at the Project site and is served by routes ECR, 140, 141, and 398. A shuttle to the San Bruno Bayhill Office Park also operates during peak periods. The SamTrans service span and average peak hour frequencies are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. BART and SamTrans Service at the San Bruno BART Station Route Service Endpoints Service Span Average Peak Hour Frequency BART Red Line Richmond Station-Millbrae Station via Oakland and San Francisco 5:15 AM to 12:00 AM (NB) 6:00 AM to 1:30 AM (SB) 15 minutes BART Yellow Line Pittsburg Bay Point & Antioch Stations-San Francisco International Airport Station via Oakland and San Francisco 5:15 AM to 12:00 AM (NB) 6:00 AM to 1:30 AM (SB) 15 minutes SamTrans ECR Daly City BART / Palo Alto Transit Center via El Camino Real 5:15 AM to 1:00 AM 15 minutes SamTrans 140 Pacifica / San Francisco International Airport 6:30 AM to 12:00 AM 30 minutes SamTrans 141 Shelter Creek (San Bruno) / Airport & Linden (South San Francisco) 6:45 AM to 7:45 PM 30 minutes SamTrans 398 Redwood City Transit Center / Downtown San Francisco 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM 60 minutes Bayhill Shuttle San Bruno BART Station to Bayhill Office Park 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM, 4:00 PM to 6:40 PM 15 Minutes Notes: Table summarizes conditions prior to COVID-19. The Bayhill Shuttle is operated independently through SamTrans’ shuttle program and is open to the public. Source: Fehr & Peers; SamTrans, 2020. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 12 2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities This section reviews existing pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bike parking, bike lockers, and showers for cyclists. Caltrans recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities: • Class I – Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians. • Class II – Bicycle Lane: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane. • Class III – Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane. • Class IV – Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. The following pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present near the Project site. Existing and proposed bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 2-2. • Sneath Lane in San Bruno has sidewalk on both sides of the street and intermittent Class II bike lanes. Bike lanes are present west of El Camino and along a two-block segment between Sea Biscuit Avenue to Huntington Avenue, but a gap occurs between El Camino Real and Sea Biscuit Avenue. • The Centennial Way Trail is a Class I shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway in South San Francisco along the BART tunnel alignment. It connects the South San Francisco BART Station with schools, parks, and neighborhoods within the City. It presently terminates adjacent to the Project site about 400 feet north of the San Bruno BART Station. • Huntington Avenue is a designated Class III bicycle route in San Bruno and South San Francisco and has sidewalks on both sides of the street. • Tanforan Avenue is a designated Class III bicycle route and has sidewalks on both sides of the street. • South Linden Avenue is a designated Class III bicycle route with sidewalks on both sides of the street. • Dollar Avenue/Herman Street is a designated Class III bicycle route and has sidewalks on the west side of the street only. • Maple Avenue is not designated as a bicycle facility and has a sidewalk along the east side of the street only alongside the Project site. Under existing conditions, the Project site is located in a mostly auto-oriented industrial and commercial area with several barriers to walking and bicycling, shown in Figure 2-3. Specifically, the following challenges to bicycle and pedestrian circulation exist: Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 13 • Access barriers to the San Bruno BART Station: When exiting the San Bruno BART Station walking or biking toward the Project site, pedestrians and bicyclists encounter Huntington Avenue, a wide multilane arterial street with narrow sidewalks and no dedicated bicycle facilities. There is no marked crosswalk directly connecting the BART Station entrance and the eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue, so pedestrians instead must cross two legs of the intersection to walk across the street. Both crosswalks have actuated pedestrian crossings, which add delay to pedestrians by defaulting to a “Don’t Walk” signal during a green light unless a button is pushed in advance. • Centennial Way Trail Gap: The Centennial Way Trail terminates 400 feet north of the San Bruno BART station and connects to the narrow sidewalk on the east side of Huntington Avenue. Pedestrians and bicyclists share this narrow sidewalk space, which meanders alongside Huntington Avenue and Huntington Avenue East with relatively abrupt changes in grade. • Narrow sidewalks with obstructions, limited pedestrian-scaled lighting, unmarked crosswalks, and lack of accessible curb ramps: Although sidewalks are present on most streets, pedestrians contend with indirect routes along narrow facilities that at times are inaccessible to mobility-impaired pedestrians. Areas of particular concern related to the Project include: the grade changes for the narrow eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue, the lack of curb ramps and marked crosswalks across Tanforan Avenue and Maple Avenue, the lack of a direct pedestrian and bicycle crossing between the Centennial Way Trail and SamTrans Transit Center at the San Bruno BART Station, and the omission of a southern crosswalk across Huntington Avenue at the San Bruno BART Station entrance. Pedestrian conditions are illustrated on Figure 2-3. • Lack of bicycle connectivity: While some bike trail and bike lane facilities are present near the Project site as shown in Figure 2-2. However, there is limited connectivity between dedicated bicycle facilities and to major destinations. For example, bike lanes along Sneath Lane do not connect to the Centennial Way Trail; the Centennial Way Trail does not connect to the San Bruno BART Station or elsewhere in San Bruno; and there is no dedicated connection between the Project site and downtown South San Francisco. Consequently, bicyclists who seek to access the Project site must share street space with cars and trucks operating on streets with posted speed limits of 25 to 30 MPH. CrestmoorCanyon 3101 W e s t O rangeAven ueC h e stnutAv Sout h Ai r port Boul evar dWestbor ough B lEl Cami no Real S a n B ru n o A v e n u e W e s t yW robraHSouth Linden AvenueEl Cami noRea l O rangeAvenueGrand Avenue Hunti ngtonAvNorthMcdonnell RoadC o u n tryC lubDr ive DubuqueAvUt a h A ven u eGatewayBlSneath La n e Linden AvSan Bruno Avenue EastSouthSpruceAvenueProduceAvEa stG randAv eunevA oetaM naSCher r y AvDor a do Wy Crestwood Dri veSpruce AvenueA valo n D rive MitchellAvenue ·82 %&280 %&38017 24 31 20 26 25 27 18 19 11 16 28 13 10 87 2 3 1 4 30 6 \\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxdBicycle FacilitiesFigure 2-2 Project Site Class II Bicycle Lane Class I Shared Path Class I Shared Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class III Bicycle Route Class IV Separated Bikeway New Street - Southline Avenue City Boundary Existing Bikeways Planned Bikeways San Bruno South San Francisco DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN LINDENVILLE BAYHILL TanforanShopping Center OrangeMemorial Park South Maple AvenueHun�ng t on AvenueSea Sco� St Miller A v Baden A v Bis cui t Av Ai rport Bl San Mateo Av N:\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\GraphicsPedestrian Circulation Barriers Figure 2-3 Slip-lane and indirect crosswalk configuration Crosswalk and ramp from Centennial Trail to project site needs improvement Centennial Trail transitions to narrow crosswalk Narrow sidewalk Unmarked crosswalk to BART Station Entrance Missing crosswalks Missing ramps Lack of accessible crosswalk to Centennial Way Trail Project Site Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 16 3. Analysis Methodology 3.1 Recent Changes to CEQA Senate Bill (SB) 7431, codified in Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code, intends to better align California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impact analysis practices and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. SB 743 creates several key statewide changes to CEQA as described below. First, SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of Projects within transit priority areas (TPAs)2 and allows OPR to extend use of these metrics beyond TPAs. OPR selected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric and applied their discretion to require its use statewide. Second, SB 743 establishes that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center Projects3 on an infill site4 within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Third, the new CEQA Guidelines that implement SB 743 requirements state that vehicle level of service (LOS) and similar measures related to auto delay shall not be used as the sole basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts, and that as of July 1, 2020, this requirement applies statewide. Prior to that date, lead agencies were permitted to elect to rely on VMT rather than LOS to analyze transportation impacts. Finally, SB 743 establishes a new CEQA exemption for a residential, mixed-use, or employment center Project that is a) within a transit priority area, b) consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified, and c) consistent with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This exemption requires further review if the Project or circumstances changes significantly. 1 Full text of SB 743: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743 2 “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations . (PRC 21099(a)(7)) 3 “Employment center Project” means a Project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area. (PRC 21099(a)(1)) 4 “Infill site” means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. (PRC 21099(a)(4)) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 17 The City of South San Francisco has adopted VMT thresholds (Resolution 77-2020) in accordance with OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 3.2 Significance Criteria The impacts of the proposed Project related to transportation would be considered significant if any of the following Standards of Significance are exceeded, in accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: • The Project or its effects conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; • The Project or its effects conflicts with or is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); • The Project substantially increases hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or • The Project results in inadequate emergency access. Thresholds of significance used in this document are based on Appendix G criteria as well as local considerations from adopted policies by the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno. Neither the City of South San Francisco nor the City of San Bruno has adopted a standard set of thresholds of significance for transportation impact analyses beyond the Appendix G criteria. 3.2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Pursuant to City of South San Francisco Resolution 77-2020 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), the following screening criteria applies to land use projects: Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Stations: CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if Project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the Project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For example, the presumption might not be appropriate if the Project: ▫ Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 ▫ Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the Project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the Project to supply parking) ▫ Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization) ▫ Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high- income residential units Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 18 If a land use Project is not presumed to have a less than significant impact, the following criteria applies: • A significant impact would occur if development of the Project would generate per-employee vehicle miles traveled (VMT) greater than the City’s adopted threshold of greater than 15 percent below the regional average. For transportation infrastructure Projects (such as a street extension), the following criteria applies: • A significant impact would occur if the Project would result in a net increase in Total VMT. 3.2.2 Design Hazards 3.2.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards • A significant impact would occur if the Project substantially increases hazards to street users due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. 3.2.2.2 Vehicle Queueing at Freeway Ramps • A significant impact would occur if 95th-percentile vehicle queues were to extend beyond the available storage space and substantially exacerbate a risk of collision. 3.2.2.3 Queueing Across an At-Grade Rail Crossing • A significant impact would occur if 95th percentile vehicle queues extend beyond available storage and may substantially exacerbate risk of collisions. 3.2.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant • A significant impact would occur if Project-related vehicle traffic at an unsignalized intersection or driveway would increase baseline volumes to meet peak hour or pedestrian volume signal warrant criteria levels, and Project-related traffic volumes may substantially increase risk of collisions. 3.2.3 Emergency Vehicle Access • A significant impact would occur if the Project results in inadequate emergency access 3.2.4 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit 3.2.4.1 Consistency with Adopted Bicycle, Pedestrian, or Transit Plans & Policies • A significant impact would occur if the Project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. 3.2.4.2 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Performance & Safety • A significant impact would occur if the project were to cause a detrimental impact on the performance of transit services. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 19 • A significant impact would occur if the project were to cause a detrimental impact on the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities. 3.3 Analysis Scenarios The impacts of the proposed Project to the surrounding transportation system were evaluated for the five scenarios listed below: • Scenario 1: Existing Conditions • Scenario 2: 2024 Baseline (No Project) • Scenario 3: 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions • Scenario 4: Cumulative 2040 Conditions • Scenario 5: Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions A description of the methods used to estimate the amount of traffic and VMT generated by the proposed Project is provided below. 3.3.1 Existing Conditions (Pre-COVID-19) Existing conditions represent the baseline condition upon which Project impacts are measured. The existing condition reflects transportation conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data was not collected for this analysis. Instead, to establish a representative existing condition, this analysis utilized local traffic data collected in 2017 and 2018 and transit service levels prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (including Caltrain service levels of five trains per hour, per direction). This approach enables analysis of an observed condition and no major developments have since been completed in the immediate Project area that might substantially affect traffic patterns; however, there is inherently some uncertainty in the data’s representation of existing conditions due to its age and the unusual circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3.3.2 2024 Baseline The 2024 Baseline condition represents a near-term condition after the COVID-19 pandemic is presumed to have ended, in which travel patterns have returned to pre-COVID-19 status. The 2024 Baseline condition includes prorated local and regional growth consistent with the 2040 forecasts, reflecting the 2017/2018 conditions plus the addition of roughly one quarter of total growth between the 2017/2018 condition and 2040 forecasts. There remains substantial uncertainties around the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on travel behavior and the duration of these effects; this approach assumes travel behavior returns to typical conditions and the effects of the pandemic are short term in nature. The 2024 Baseline also includes the completion of the Caltrain Electrification Project, a Project currently under construction that will increase Caltrain service levels to six trains per hour, per direction. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 20 3.3.3 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions The 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 conditions represent the 2024 condition with the addition of Phase 1 of the Project based on the anticipated Phase 1 construction schedule. Phase 1 of the Project includes several major transportation network improvements, including the construction of Southline Avenue; constructing a new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; providing a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and extension of various bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station and enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station with new bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks. As such, under 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 conditions, traffic volumes reflect the existing traffic volumes, some redistribution of traffic to the new Southline Avenue, and traffic associated with the land uses in Phase 1 of the Project. 3.3.4 Cumulative 2040 Conditions Cumulative 2040 conditions include transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with planned transportation Projects. Cumulative conditions are based on forecasted land use and transportation conditions included in Plan Bay Area 2040, as represented in the C/CAG Model. Forecasts for cumulative conditions include several adjustments to reflect reasonably foreseeable Projects affecting the study area, including completion of all approved employment Projects within the City of South San Francisco as of May 2020,5 and completion of the Bayhill Specific Plan in the City of San Bruno (a plan that may be considered reasonably foreseeable even though it is not yet approved). Along the Caltrain railroad corridor, cumulative conditions include the operation of 12 trains per hour, per direction during peak periods; this service level reflects completion of the California High Speed Rail Project to operate four high speed trains per hour, per direction (as described in Plan Bay Area) as well as the Caltrain Business Plan’s adopted service vision of operating eight trains per hour, per direction during peak periods. Cumulative conditions do not assume completion of the South Linden and Scott Street grade separations since these Projects are not yet fully funded or included in the regional transportation plan. As of September 2020, both South San Francisco and San Bruno have provided direction to proceed with studying a hybrid approach for the South Linden Avenue grade crossing that involves partially raising the railway and lowering the roadway, along with closing Scott Street to vehicles and maintaining a crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists. 5 The total land use approvals for employment Projects in the City of South San Francisco exceeds Plan Bay Area forecasts, so the difference in employment growth has been added to Plan Bay Area forecasts. Projects included in this cumulative analysis include major developments such as the Cove, Gateway of the Pacific, the Oyster Point Development, and other projects in the East of 101 Area. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 21 3.3.5 Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Conditions Cumulative plus Project conditions represent the cumulative condition with the addition of the complete Project buildout to determine the extent to which the proposed Project would contribute to long-term cumulative transportation impacts. 3.4 Travel Demand Model Methodology The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Travel Demand Model (C/CAG Model) was used as a basis for analyzing travel behavior, including trip distribution and vehicle miles traveled (discussed in Section 4.2). The C/CAG Model is a trip-based regional travel demand model that considers regional land use patterns, approximated highway congestion, and connecting transit service within the nine-county Bay Area region. As part of the ongoing City of South San Francisco General Plan Update study, the C/CAG model was reviewed, and updated through a series of diagnostic tests to assess the model’s performance and reasonableness, and a series of refinements were made to the model inputs for land use, roadway network and transit service within South San Francisco.6 These updates improve the C/CAG model’s effectiveness in reasonably estimating current travel patterns and changes in travel patterns in response to Project land use and transportation network changes. To further enhance the reasonableness of trip assignment from the C/CAG Model, the City of South San Francisco’s sub-area model was applied using Project trip generation and trip distribution from the C/CAG Model. The sub-area model, developed for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, reflects origin-destination patterns consistent with the C/CAG Model and incorporates refinements to the level of detail in the local street network. The sub-area model, developed in the Visum software platform, provides a more detailed representation of traffic circulation and operational performance of the roadway network in the vicinity of the Project and within the San Francisco and San Bruno areas. The roadway network in the sub-area model was refined to include most streets and major driveways in South San Francisco. The traffic assignment process in the sub-area model incorporates details such as signal timings, intersection lane geometries, and turning movement delays, allowing for a more realistic representation of existing traffic patterns and those associated with the Project land use and proposed street extension. 3.5 Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed Project was estimated using a three- step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step, trip generation, estimates the amount of traffic that would be generated once the proposed Project was built and fully occupied. The second step, trip distribution, estimates the direction of travel to and from the Project. The 6 The updates to model were based on relevant national guidance including the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations, CTC, 2017 and Travel Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual, Second Edition, TMIP, FHWA, 2010. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 22 third step, trip assignment, assigns the proposed Project trips to specific street segments and intersection turning movements. The results are described below. 3.5.1 Trip Generation Project person trip and vehicle trip forecasts were developed to capture the multimodal nature of Project travel as a transit-oriented development. Person trip generation represents trips by one person in any mode of transportation, whereas vehicle trip generation represents trips by one vehicle. Vehicle trip estimates include trips associated with single occupancy vehicles, taxis, ride-hailing companies (like Uber and Lyft), carpools, and shuttles. The Project includes two land use alternatives – an office use and a life science use. For purposes of this analysis, the office use was analyzed to reflect a land use condition with an employee density – typically offices have one employee per 250 square feet, compared to one employee per 450 square feet for life science uses.7 Therefore, the Office Alternative would have a larger effect on the surrounding environment when compared to the Life Sciences Alternative. As such, this section analyzes the Office Alternative when considering project impacts under the buildout scenario. Trip generation estimates were prepared for the Phase 1 Project (701,000 square feet), inclusive of the approximately 16,400 square foot publicly-accessible ground floor uses in the amenities buildings, in addition to the Project Buildout (up to 2,800,000 square feet). The higher parking scenario was analyzed (2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet). As described in Section 1.1, the Project is subject to the City’s Transportation Demand Management ordinance. The Project will be required to comply with a maximum drive alone mode share of 55 percent. Under the Transportation Demand Management ordinance, the Project must comply with standard monitoring practices to enforce these mode share requirements. A Preliminary TDM Plan has been prepared for the Project, which is applicable to the entire Project site. 3.5.1.1 Office Trip Generation Office trip generation was calculated using local data from comparable sites, as further described below, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition recommendation for using local data for similar atypical developments like the proposed Project, which is very large in scale, adjacent to high frequency transit service, has a reduced parking supply, and is subject to stringent transportation demand management requirements. Based on the ITE recommendation, this analysis estimates person trip and vehicle trip rates based on observed counts and mode share surveys for comparable high intensity technology office uses in Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station, as analyzed in the Redwood City Moves Transportation Plan. Based on a review of comparable trip generation and mode share data for other transit-oriented office sites located in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Mateo, the 7 San Jose Market Overview and Employment Lands Analysis, City of San Jose, 2016. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 23 Downtown Redwood City location was selected based on land use, transit, and TDM characteristics that most closely resemble the Project. These person trip and vehicle trip rates from the Downtown Redwood City data were adjusted to reflect the Project’s mode share requirements consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s TDM ordinance – a maximum peak period drive alone rate of 55 percent including single- occupancy vehicles and single-passenger trips via ride-hailing companies or taxis, as compared to an observed peak period drive-alone rate of 50 percent in the downtown Redwood City surveys.8 Person trip generation for non-auto modes was based on transit, carpool, and active transportation data from South San Francisco TDM surveys and the proximity of the Project to transit services and active transportation facilities. An estimated 23 percent of peak hour trips would occur via BART, 10 percent via Caltrain, eight percent via Carpool, two percent via SamTrans buses, and two percent via bicycling. Trips via BART and SamTrans would require walking from the Project to the San Bruno BART Station or SamTrans bus transit center, while trips via Caltrain would connect via first/last mile shuttles or via biking. 3.5.1.2 Amenity Uses Trip generation for the Project’s publicly accessible restaurant/retail uses were estimated using the High Turnover Restaurant classification from the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Since the publicly accessible amenities are generally expected to draw pedestrian trips from elsewhere within the Project site and adjacent areas, the High Turnover Restaurant classification provides a conservative assessment of vehicle trips that is typically more reflective of a more automobile-oriented use. Amenity uses accessible only to tenants of the Project such as an employee cafeteria, fitness center, basketball court, auditorium would not generate external vehicle trips, but would generate employee- related person trips for individuals employed at these services. Trip generation for these internal private amenities was estimated at about one quarter of office rates based on anticipated employee densities and mix of staffed and unstaffed uses9. Trip generation for the public and private amenity uses were included in both the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout. 3.5.1.3 Trip Internalization In mixed use developments, some trips between different land uses are “internalized” onsite – occurring by walking rather than driving elsewhere. The project proposes to include a mix of office and amenity uses that would facilitate some internalization (such as an office employee walking to a fitness center, cafeteria, and café or retail space). Internalization rates of 3 percent (AM peak hour) and 2 percent (PM peak hour) were 8 City of South San Francisco’s TDM ordinance establishes required alternative mode share of 45 percent based on Project floor area ratio. 9 Based on the San Mateo County Linkage Fee Nexus Study, restaurant and service uses typically have half of the employee density of office uses. About half of the Project amenity spaces were identified to be actively staffed restaurant and service uses; therefore, the employee density and trip generation was assumed to be one-quarter of office uses. Office trip generation typically reflect mostly trips by employees, so the ratio of amenity density to office density was applied to trip generation to determine amenity trip generation rates. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 24 applied to all vehicle trips during the respective peak hours, based on the Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model (MXD) + Model, a weighted average of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s MXD and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s 684 methodology. 3.5.1.4 Credit for Existing Trip Generation The project’s net change in the number of vehicle trips was calculated to reflect the estimated number of vehicle trips occurring at the Specific Plan area under existing conditions. Because of the atypical travel patterns associated with the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order, driveway counts at existing uses were not conducted. Instead, trip generation for existing uses within the Specific Plan area was estimated based on land use characteristics and Trip Generation Manual recommendations. Existing land uses include approximately 344,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses, about 85 percent of which is occupied. All of the existing land uses would be demolished as part of Phase 1; therefore, both Phase 1 and project buildout trip generation include the full trip credit associated with existing land uses. In total, existing uses generate an estimated 1,504 daily vehicle trips, including 171 AM peak-hour vehicle trips and 150 PM peak- hour vehicle trips. 3.5.1.5 Trip Generation Results Phase 1 of the Project would generate approximately 7,930 daily person trips and 3,954 daily vehicle trips. These totals include 1,043 AM peak hour person trips, 485 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips, 950 PM peak hour person trips, and 455 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 show person trip and vehicle trip generation estimates for Phase 1, respectively. Table 3-1. Person Trip Generation | Phase 1 Mode Mode Share AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Drive Alone 55% 499 447 3,837 Carpool 8% 73 65 550 BART 23% 209 187 1,281 Caltrain1 10% 91 81 557 SamTrans 2% 18 16 111 Walk/Bike2 2% 18 16 111 Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 908 812 6,448 Person Trips, Public Amenity Visitors - 135 138 1,482 Total Person Trips - 1,043 950 7,930 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and person trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. 2. Mode share estimates based on City of South San Francisco TDM Surveys and analysis based on local context. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 25 Table 3-2. Vehicle Trip Generation | Phase 1 Land Use Size (KSF) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Office1 613 0.81 464 35 499 0.73 58 387 445 6.16 3,774 Private Amenities2 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public Amenities3 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization Adjustment (3% AM / 2% PM) -15 -3 -18 -3 -8 -11 -280 Project Trips 551 105 656 154 451 605 5,458 Existing Office4 11 ITE Equation -10 -2 -12 ITE Equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing Light Industrial5 278 ITE Equation -140 -19 -159 ITE Equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 401 84 485 134 321 455 3,954 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and vehicle trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table. 2. Includes external trips associated with employee commutes and deliveries only, assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip generation rate based upon expected uses and employee densities. 3. Source: ITE 932 High Turnover Restaurant, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Values rounded in table. 4. Source: ITE 710, General Office Building, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with the Phase 1 Project. 5. Source: ITE 110, General Light Industrial, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with the Phase 1 Project. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. The Project Buildout would generate approximately 28,461 daily person trips and 16,876 vehicle trips. These totals include 3,918 AM peak hour person trips, 2,150 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips, 3,528 PM peak hour person trips, and 1,952 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show person trip and vehicle trip generation estimates for the Project Buildout respectively. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 26 Table 3-3. Person Trip Generation | Project Buildout Mode Mode Share AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Drive Alone 55% 2,105 1,879 15,984 Carpool 8% 306 273 2,317 BART 23% 880 786 5,394 Caltrain1 10% 383 342 2,345 SamTrans 2% 77 68 469 Walk/Bike2 2% 77 68 469 Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 3,828 3,416 26,978 Person Trips, Public Amenity Visitors - 90 112 1,483 Total Person Trips - 3,918 3,528 28,461 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and person trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. 2. Mode share estimates based on City of South San Francisco TDM Surveys and assignment to transit providers based on local context and expected travel patterns. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 27 Table 3-4. Vehicle Trip Generation | Project Buildout Land Use Size (KSF) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Office1 2,712 0.81 2,053 155 2,208 0.73 256 1,713 1,969 6.16 16,696 Private Amenities2 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public Amenities3 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization Adjustment (3% AM / 2% PM) -56 -6 -62 -6 -32 -38 -280 Project Trips 2,099 222 2,321 349 1,753 2,102 18,380 Existing Office4 11 ITE Equation -10 -2 -12 ITE Equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing Light Industrial5 278 ITE Equation -140 -19 -159 ITE Equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 1,949 201 2,150 329 1,623 1,952 16,876 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and vehicle trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table. 2. Includes external trips associated with employee commutes and deliveries only, assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip generation rate based upon expected uses and employee densities. 3. Source: ITE 932 High Turnover Restaurant, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Values rounded in table. 4. Source: ITE 710, General Office Building, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. 5. Source: ITE 110, General Light Industrial, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. 3.5.2 Project Vehicle Trip Distribution, and Project Vehicle Trip Assignment Figure 3-1 displays vehicle trip distribution by county based on the C/CAG Model. Approximately 65 percent of vehicle trips would travel between the Project and other locations in San Mateo County. About 21 percent of trips would travel between the Project and San Francisco County. The remainder of trips would be split between Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and elsewhere in the East Bay and North Bay. This summary does not include trip distribution associated with non-auto trips. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 28 Figure 3-1. Vehicle Trip Distribution – Summary by County Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-5 illustrate Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip distribution and assignment based on the City’s sub-area model, depicting street segments with greater than 25 Project-generated trips. Vehicle trip distribution from the Project is shown in green, while volumes assigned to individual streets are illustrated proportionally in blue. The Project’s location and access to multiple freeway ramps would result in drivers using several different routes to access US-101, I-380, and I-280. Because 2040 freeway conditions are projected to be highly congested, some Project trips may travel somewhat longer distances via parallel corridors such as El Camino Real or Junipero Serra Boulevard. Approximately 56 percent of Project- generated trips would travel via San Bruno, and 44 percent via South San Francisco. Figure 3-6 through Figure 3-9 illustrate the total difference in volumes associated with the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout (the Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip assignment plus the rerouting of trips associated with the new street connection). Change in trips is illustrated proportionally with increases shown in red and decreases shown in green. By adding the Southline Avenue connection between Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue, the Project would shift vehicle trips from other routes, resulting in a net decrease in traffic volumes on parallel routes like Spruce Avenue and Scott Street. 2024 conditions generally mirror those shown in 2040 with lower traffic volumes associated with Phase 1. The vehicle trip assignment served as the basis for selecting study locations for freeway ramps (Figure 3-10) as well as simulation of local transportation conditions, described in the following section. San Mateo County, 65% San Francisco County, 21% Alameda County, 4% Santa Clara County , 4%Other, 5% © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors 54 5 5 5434343434345 5 325555 3055 5 5 322077 5 6 49 60 30 29 6 8 77 49 49 49 49 17 1 7 77 31 7 7 6 0 6 4 6 7 37 36 6 0 60 3 13737 5 6 4848 48 49 6 8 5 6 30 40 38 3 7 2 8 37 3 2 20 32 32 3 2 32 4031 30 32 3221573838257577 2 518 7 7 7 7 2 6 5 2 4 6 45 212341 20187545 37232327252525252643372339 16 16 3839 322 4 2 4 2 4 20201442 675 6 3 1 7 8565 6 2 0 4 1261261255615 179 626 5 05 63 1 22 49497 6 4 24747 18251517 15152 2 2 3 252520 2428 27151 818421517 1715 242419 Volume flow bundle PrT [veh] (AP)0 67 133 267 Southline E+Phase 1 Phase 1 Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour Project Site \\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthline - Phase 1 Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour Figure 3-2 30 70 150 270 20% 10% 20% 50% XX%Trip Distribution © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors302 9 31 2 2 2 8 2 9 2828 3 0 2822 2 2 2 52 521 21 23252 597 77 96 2 5 2 0 97 77 76 76 76 84 31 97 9 6 9 6 97 96 96 3 1 202525757676 76 2 4 25 15191 9 1515151545 30 28 28 5050 2 36958605051 248339 2 4 3 6 3 7 6 8 2 42 5 25 388325 222424252522226161 61 61 162991622 6 1 6 25 1 7 1 7 7 325 2 6969593 472 876 4 547164545 6 5 2 9 4 4 2 3 5151511 64929174949 16 15 Volume flow bundle PrT [veh] (AP)0 40 81 162 Southline E+Phase 1 Phase 1 Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour Project Site \\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthline - Phase 1 Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour Figure 3-3 20 40 80 160 25% 11% 23% 41% XX%Trip Distribution © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors 169514999 3 0177 16929 22822722822722746 17715129 2917717 7 95177 4650505 0 9 8 17713213246 9 898 811 8 0 191 267 119 119 5 7 5 8 2 2 6 5 3 3 07 191 188 183 182 41 34 61 307 1 3 6 307 2 6 8 26 4 277 160 155 2 6 8 267 136 5 2132131 1 8 0 161163 182 182 2 2 5 1 8 0 120 160 151 150 110 16560 42474741 15 629 7 5 11929 47 8246 888686868285124 8411989959 8 10494 104 33 156 1564027 7 656252856 806 0 4723317733 1792929 5050 152323223 942 2 0 2 2 2 1 7 81 2 31 3 6 136 259 5 8 6 0254795323135 2115162224150152153472232113 272501438242 112 79 26 79 4217042249111 49 48 3 2 3 4 95 94 4 0 3 6 56 4747 14026 2951 50 93 9 2 7 0 7 0 335736864 9 25 6 5 8 5 8 8 4 3 2 0257 2 5 8 7 1 3 48847 2820743 5688 665451985 5 1932 0 5 318 4 37 5 0 56 1 9 0 1 9 1 59 3 1 5 1 7 518318227 5 3 89100254765 10011345 5 7 7 24 64 5 2758 57 398688393082 55 374 9363571868527 31 27 10154 5 5 6718047 11357 58 26 30 25 426 3 88 704 1 26 2828 57 521123029 35 31 28277748 5439 39 29 2 9 48 45385657Volume flow bundle PrT [veh] (AP)0 178 356 713 Southline 2040 Buildout Project Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsProject Trip Distribution & Assignment - AM Peak HourFigure 3-4 30%14% 18% 38% XX% Trip Distribution 200 400 800 Project Site © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors155142 9799160 1201 25 115 16 2 115115 2712047 47 120104115 105125 13 2 13613 6 35 35 119 12085 85 1551361 3 6 304 235 303 59 59 4 1 44 18 0 83 304 235 226 222 221 65 65 46 275 11 4 304 3 0 3 27 303 3 04 82 78 3 03 303 115 80141141219220221 221 1 76 7 0 69 69 69 40 40 1412828 7474 333 3426868424242 367473 33 42 42426628 175 172 170 33333 3 76 5 4277727 59 8 1 81252262062147777 5252 13222699 1 2 8299 0 9 3 1 03 19 4 5 4 54 4496257313239 422922553 1729810840123128131135133391221711142 8 119619767105116 64 47 46 15130301516319564 115 232 233 63 36 40 26 25 31 31 53911053 918 7 72 18 2 75 7 4 3 6 2 8 018 5 18 7 61 6 51551233285072 44 33 37 305737321053678 8 1162 32022 924 4533 5 7 2 54 22722 9 41 2 65 13 6 85 219 1 34 1081074031 10710738 54 52 3 9 38 3 31071083834 53 42 3872 7 23736100585810742 36 571357 510740 40 31 3 0100996610610627 7250 71 693 239 Volume flow bundle PrT [veh] (AP)0 154 308 616 Southline 2040 Buildout Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsProject Trip Distribution & Assignment - PM Peak Hour Figure 3-5 26%16% 19% 39% XX%Trip Distribution Project Site 150 300 650 © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors 5338375 9 44 -53-42-4 8 4 3 45-535 1 41 3434-52-283 9 -30-41-58-55 325872 40 52 -2 9 5 2 -3 6 -42 292734 36 65 1 0 5 34 2 6 29 3 2 4 4 4 4 292 6 2 6 1 0 7 6 6 4466 65 3 5 4 9 62 38 36 3 6 34 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 05 4 5 32 2828 2 9-27-263 03049 49 7828293028 36 31 28 4 9272844433 7 -4 9 32-54-48-217-176-204-163275227397271-121 4 8-1 1 9 - 1 2 0 2 9 4 3 8 1-4 3 -1 2 5 -128-46 39 99-3 8 -3 5 -55 -136 422736-48-29-35364926523460573136432820 52 64146180264205-67 264205167133-56 83 46 82 4133 2435856835 8 6 -7 2 3 8 4 0 -267 7-3 3 -66442 7-8 3189186 2427589 -372626-493 9 18 9 68904 0 68686 5-4 2 6 6 6 2 5383-4 5 -52262734 -53-64-54-57-39-6334 -69-7726 Version comparison - Base_2015_2019LU\VOL_1HR_AM0225450899<= 0.00> 0 Southline E+Phase 1 Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour Project Site Decrease Increase Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthline - Existing Plus Phase 1 Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour Figure 3-6 50 250 450 900 © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors4048 -45-264 0 26 -33-92 -513 5 263 2 -3933-41-33-66-35-101-3 72 8 2833 33 -44 40 5 5-27-46-3529 2 729 35 -3544-41 -5528 40 8 76 8 34 3 2 59 5 93 1 1 1 7 3 1 40 34 32 32 32 28 45 40 4 4 58 8 7 6 8 33 33 36 31 11 6 26-59-6828-2626 28 38 -55 -54 3131-2 755 27 46 45-6829 264 12834283429 2 7 -4 0-7 9-91-122-201-264-160-24530-5485332355-83 8 030 -1 0 0 -9 2 3 4 8 34 8-1 0 0 -112 148-3 0 -26-39-113 4048-2736798430853658404723 62 66145195266236-52 266236181131-39 -90 -55 -56 42 34 1266736 40 34-35 3643055 7 3 2 7 -28-328 8 -16 8 - 1 8 47988265 -331062821 03-30-48-75659410327 9994-3 0 6 0 8 54 511859-2 9-59-39-41 -33 -39-58-684456-76-5528 -52-68-58-93-68-28 Version comparison - Base_2015_2019LU\VOL_1HR_PM0248497993<= 0.00> 0 Southline E+Phase 1 Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour Project Site Decrease Increase Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthline - Existing Plus Phase 1 Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour Figure 3-7 100 250 500 1000 © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors 170168802 2 8 202 -53-27-70-8 0322 3 1 21236 -51-6932 -67 101 33 -42 190155159221227263 8-523350 2 5 7 -26-51-54 15136 343740189214 172 1 5 4 6758327 39 3 1 12186121 1 2 1 -36 4 9 56 56 -2727 3 2 7 45-9166-2812412448 6631-3 9 39 4 9-27-2727 -39-3 6 35 -64 64 3 3 83 59 1 3 5 1 1 6 110 1 1 3 9 3 94 116135 8 2 2 6 8 -1 5 7 8 8 64 82 52 53 27 52 28 47 34 6364 -1 02 4 5 64 6 2 52 45 2 851 60 165 160 61 59 45-1 02 -1 5 8 87 44 120 - 62 1 6 1 4748 55 52 28 2 8 437 1133 5 35 119 123 123 110 596037 105-271 5 432-282 9 4 130 4 127 4 028426969 42 5626127 41595383-26265 3 535328 55 37669 7 939338 5151512669 39 152 31 174-2728 1 2 9 33 32 2931404263669241 392629 92521 2 4 -7 1 12226-10177-100-15939 -89-1922927 41 30 53 50 36181607292-157115 1 8 5 4 1 -1 6 41 0 611 0 -1 6 0 4 6 3 4 3 86 6 -1 0 6 -11457 3162236-3 6 -344011049 -122 119607682-35-26-3410541186181353836182401061187751 63 2536 35 13839643628828 32 31 27 28 32 33 34436538312636 40 39 64 172 64 32 48 73 3 4 38 -38 62 17835 49 33 41 41 37 37 2709731075 6 1 1 31 2 7 2 0 0 3 3 3 3 8 9 -8 3 -43 -4 3 -42 -40-4 3 -2 9 2 8 4-1 4 0 -158 20020 0-1 5 7460461955028 361 0 5-5 0 2919638604730 34323 2 2938-3921 1 119-53 3938 -2 6 3737314926 27 2 9 449 2 31 2 72634334536 44 -5 7 3 62 7 4 83 0 3 2 8 2 70 48 49140107-8 9 -50485232363 5 485326266671 30 -50-474262 48 6 4 6 33140 39 27 28 627454 4 3-84273 0 51 50 31 302929 32 32 40-533355 6250 42-4734 35 34 522 9 433241 35 35 34 100 -43-4850 31 3427504982 292866 2 9 34 43 403839Version comparison - Southline 2040 No Project\VOL_1HR_AM03466921383<= 0.00> 0 Southline 2040 Buildout Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthlineProject Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour Figure 3-8 Decrease Increase 350 700 1400 Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume Project Site © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors3012567 879946130 941 6 1 7 9 -32-51 1 5 8 7912 3 547 08578 44 90 39401171042 8 -41-33-3 7 120 10554 5462 27161 22 63 5 94576 2 -3 2 -32 43 5886 8610431 2619143 39 33 6 4 949 4 1 101 2 5 136 136 72 1 1 7 89 8 9 89 8 0 1 177 0 3 1 2 9 9 11 3 136 99 94 90 62 44 135 4 9 113 1 3 8 30 36 9 3 8 1 101 98 1 3 7 136 49101100 8 6 1 4 2 1 1 0 1 2 5 114115 94 89 7 73 0 8 1 2 5 1 1 0 91 90 30107 107 30 328 8 9228 51-8939 964096 54-7727342 656 33 -34494 9 323 4 5 0 393 839 38 2829 46393994 342638313 4 3 4 2 7 3 9 3 9 3 9 69 37105 1 1 2 1 2 8 14714331 88 47 118 120 55-7653423333 33401 1 5 29337072102-311021 0 6 -28 -4 4 9436 374249-98-153-203-146-18926 293231 1608536752888-114 7 7-1 1 9 -1 1 5 8 2 4 325 2 4-1 3 4 4 3 37-140 123 179-3 9 -35 292943-5356-140 37 15427 344158-34-306315482851581701618643638427153473 335 7 2 2952413884024541-50 45334071230283-44 96 91 5 9 5568 44 38 164693331 47 61 -41 33 33 3 84283527 3 7 1 2 8 -1 63 3 1 3 1 2 845 30 3 7 -28-472 8 -3 32 2 1107-186-1 7 71 1 7135119637 27 5 01656803043738 -59-293426274130-74101 2 6 23043 0 -2743362 846 41 2 5 6 26 2 49 -6 51 7 3 34 23 89 6 2627 14794-5 3-4632 -413642283434374046 -53 -44-9441 2834 30 55 31 5228 3 75050-403 4 34 292929 30 382 8 34 31 -82-9448 49 39303130 -38 -57-70-8834 34 3231 34 26 35 32 29277038 33 36 3452 39-27 Version comparison - Southline 2040 No Project\VOL_1HR_PM03737461492<= 0.00> 0 Southline 2040 Buildout Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthlineProject Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour Figure 3-9 Decrease Increase 350 700 1400 Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume Project SiteProject Site CrestmoorCanyon 3101 W e s t O rangeAven ueC h e stnutAv South A irport Bou le va rd Westbor ough B lEl Cam ino Rea l San Bru n o A v e n u e W e s t yW robraHSouth Linden AvenueEl Cami noRea l O rangeAvenueGrand Avenue Hunti ngtonAvNorthMcdonnell RoadC o u n tryC lubDr ive DubuqueAvUtah Av e n u eGatewayBlSneat h L a n e Linden AvSan Bruno Avenue EastSouthSpruceAvenueProduceAvEa stG randAv eunevA oetaM naSCherry AvDor ado WyCrestwood DriveSpruce AvenueAva lo n Drive MitchellAvenue ·82 %&280 %&380 14 15 17 24 31 20 26 25 27 18 19 22 23 11 16 28 13 10 87 2 3 1 4 29 30 12 6 9 21 \\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxdFigure 3-10Study Locations Project Site New Street - Southline Avenue City Boundary Caltrain Station BART Station Microsimulation Network Freeway Intersections South Maple AvenueHun�ng t on AvenueSea Sco� St Miller A v Baden A v Bis cui t Av Ai rport Bl San Mateo AvSan Bruno South San Francisco DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN LINDENVILLE BAYHILL TanforanShopping Center OrangeMemorial Park ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.5 mi ! Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 38 3.6 Multimodal Analysis Methodology The Vissim software program was used as the basis for evaluating the congestion and multimodal traffic conditions around the Project. Vissim analyzes traffic by simulating and capturing the interactions between individual cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians and bicycles. In addition to vehicular LOS, Vissim enables evaluation of vehicle queuing, transit and emergency vehicle delays, pedestrian and bicycle delays, and pedestrian density (via the Viswalk module). When analyzing new and modified traffic signals in the Project, traffic signal timing was optimized to balance minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles and reducing delay for all users. Synchro and SimTraffic software were used to evaluate vehicle queueing at freeway ramps. Synchro was used as the primary analysis tool to identify potentially congested locations, while SimTraffic was used to refine the queueing analysis at congested locations. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 39 4. Transportation Analysis This section includes analysis and findings of the Project’s environmental effects on transportation services and facilities related to walking, biking, driving, and riding transit. Topics covered include: • Plan & Policy Consistency Review • VMT Analysis • Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment • Site Plan Analysis • Offsite Analysis 4.1 Plan & Policy Consistency Review This section reviews the Project’s consistency with adopted plans and policies by local and regional jurisdictions. 4.1.1 City of South San Francisco Plans and Policies 4.1.1.1 General Plan Policies The Project site is located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area under the General Plan. The General Plan includes a number of policies that encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, such as providing better connectivity to San Bruno BART station, including via an extension of Sneath Lane through the Project site. The General Plan contemplates that a new east- west street that would bisect the Project site and create a connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue to serve as the gateway between Downtown and San Bruno BART Station, as shown in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) – Proposed Streets Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 40 The following City of South San Francisco General Plan policies relate to the Project and walking, biking, and transit.10 A new 2040 General Plan (Shape SSF) is currently being prepared by the City, but the City has not yet adopted new policies. • 3.2-G-2 Develop new streets and through connections to facilitate truck movement; improve access to U.S. 101, and provide better connectivity between the proposed San Bruno BART station and Downtown. • 3.2-G-3 Enhance the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements. • 3.2-I-14 Provide new street extensions in Lindenville as outlined in Chapter 4: Transportation.. including extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station • 4.2-G-2 Improve connections between different parts of the city. • 4.2-G-8 Use the Bicycle Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access. • 4.2-G-9 Use the Pedestrian Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access. • 4.2-G-10 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled. • 4.2-G-13 Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation. • 4.2-I-2 Undertake street improvements [including the] South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. • 4.2-I-10 In planning, designing, and constructing Complete Streets: ◦ Include infrastructure that promotes a safe means of travel for all users along the right of way, such as sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders. ◦ Include infrastructure that facilitates safe crossing of the right of way, such as accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, and pedestrian signals; such infrastructure must meet the needs of people with different types of disabilities and people of different ages. ◦ Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, public transportation stops and facilities, and other aspects of the transportation right of way are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and meet the needs of people with different types of disabilities, including mobility impairments, vision impairments, hearing impairments, and others. Ensure that the South San Francisco ADA Transition Plan includes a prioritization method for enhancements and revise if necessary. 10 The City of South San Francisco General Plan includes policies related to automobile LOS for certain locations, however, General Plan Policy 4.2-G-17 exempts development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards, which applies to the Project. Moreover, under SB 743, LOS or similar measures of traffic congestion are no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA, Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 41 ◦ Prioritize incorporation of street design features and techniques that promote safe and comfortable travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation, such as traffic calming circles, additional traffic calming mechanisms, narrow vehicle lanes, raised medians, dedicated transit lanes, transit priority signalization, transit bulb outs, road diets, high street connectivity, and physical buffers and separations between vehicular traffic and other users. ◦ Ensure use of additional features that improve the comfort and safety of users: Provide pedestrian-oriented signs, pedestrian-scale lighting, benches and other street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, and comfortable and attractive public transportation stops and facilities. Encourage street trees, landscaping, and planting strips, including native plants where possible, in order to buffer traffic noise and protect and shade pedestrians and bicyclists. Reduce surface water runoff by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the streets. • 4.2-I-11 In all street projects, include infrastructure that improves transportation options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation of all ages and abilities. ◦ Ensure that this infrastructure is included in planning, design, approval, construction, operations, and maintenance phases of street projects. ◦ Incorporate this infrastructure into all construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, alteration, and repair of streets, bridges, and other portions of the transportation network. • 4.3-I-14 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations—South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station—and the surroundings. Components of the program should include: ◦ Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed; ◦ Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; • Providing intersection “bulbing” to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas; ◦ Continuing with the City’s current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; ◦ Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use 4.1.1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans The City of South San Francisco’s Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan identify improvements to provide safer walking and biking to make active transportation an integral part of the City’s transportation system. Near the Project site, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies Class III bicycle routes on South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue. Both plans are currently being updated in the Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in connection with the City’s General Plan Update in progress (Shape SSF), which has not yet been adopted. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 42 4.1.1.3 South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance The City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which is specified in Title 20 of the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, seeks to reduce the amount of traffic generated by nonresidential development and minimize drive-alone commute trips. The TDM ordinance establishes a performance target for minimum alternative mode share for all nonresidential projects resulting in more than 100 average daily trips and identifies higher thresholds for projects that will be developed at increased intensity. For the Project, the minimum alternative mode share is 45 percent, based on the requested FAR. Per the TDM ordinance, all projects are required to submit annual mode share surveys. Projects seeking a FAR bonus are also required to submit triennial reports assessing project compliance with the required alternative mode share target. Where targets are not achieved, the report must include program modification recommendations and City officials may impose administrative penalties should subsequent triennial reports indicate mode share targets remain unachieved. 4.1.2 City of San Bruno Plans and Policies This section summarizes City of San Bruno policies as they relate to the portion of the Project’s proposed infrastructure improvements within its jurisdiction. The Project EIR is intended to provide CEQA clearance for subsequent discretionary approvals required by other agencies, including the City of San Bruno, for proposed offsite improvements located outside of the City of South San Francisco’s jurisdiction. Analysis regarding these City of San Bruno policies is included here for that purpose; however, these policies do not apply to the Project overall. 4.1.2.1 General Plan Policies The following City of San Bruno General Plan policies are relevant to the Project’s proposed offsite improvements within San Bruno.11 • T-A Provide for efficient, safe, and pleasant movement for all transportation modes—vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians. • T-E Focus San Bruno’s efforts on improvements to the non-motorized transportation system (i.e., bicycles, pedestrians, strollers, etc.) adjacent to transit corridors and stations, and their connections to those systems. • T-F Provide efficient local transit—such as a shuttle system—to the BART and Caltrain stations to avoid dependence on individual motor vehicles. 11 The City of San Bruno General Plan includes policies related to automobile LOS, including Policy T-B stating that acceptable levels of service for vehicular movement along the city’s street network should be maintained, and that “[a]cceptable level of service could vary based on characteristics of the area under consideration.” Under SB 743, LOS or similar measures of traffic congestion are no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 43 • T-I Develop and maintain a comprehensive bicycle network within San Bruno, providing connections to BART and Caltrain, surrounding cities, employment and shopping areas, and natural areas. • T-J Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of sidewalks and pedestrian paths within the city. • T-2 Ensure that all transportation improvements— roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian—are designed and constructed according to Americans with Disabilities Act standards. Improve existing facilities so they are compliant with American Disability Act standards. • T-43 Create a “pedestrian-friendly” environment surrounding the BART and Caltrain stations by installing additional street trees, lighting, signage, and widening sidewalks along streets adjacent to these stations. • T-47 Improve multi-modal access—specifically for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit passengers—to the BART and Caltrain stations through improvements along Huntington Avenue. • T-70 Identify funding for and implement as a priority bicycle/pedestrian paths along the BART and Caltrain track alignments (Huntington Avenue and Herman Avenue) within the city limits. Coordinate with the Linear Park planned in South San Francisco and Millbrae. 4.1.2.2 Transit Corridors Plan Policies The City of San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan articulates the community's vision for revitalized commercial corridors in proximity to the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain Station. The following policies are relevant to the Project’s proposed offsite improvements within San Bruno: • TRANS-B Ensure increased transit connectivity within and to/from the Transit Corridors Area and provide for transit amenities at stops and stations that increase the visibility of stops/stations and improve the comfort and convenience for transit riders. • TRANS-C Encourage improved bicycle connectivity and enhanced bicycle parking opportunities within the Transit Corridors Area linking the surrounding land uses and future Caltrain station. ◦ TRANS-C.1 Provide Class II bicycle lanes on Huntington Avenue north of San Bruno Avenue. • TRANS-D Facilitate pedestrian access and safety through pedestrian enhancements, including the provision of enhanced crosswalks at all intersections and wider sidewalks and pedestrian amenities along the transit corridors. ◦ TRANS-D.1 Provide enhanced crosswalks at all crossings in Transit Corridors Area. As appropriate, enhanced crosswalks should include pedestrian bulbouts, median refuge islands or special paving treatments. • TRANS-E Develop and implement a parking management strategy for the Plan area that makes efficient use of the City’s parking supply through shared parking strategies and that provides the lowest number of parking spaces while still maintaining the viability of the Plan through efficient use of the parking supply within the Plan Area. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 44 • TRANS-F Develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that reduces the amount of peak period motor vehicle traffic and encourages the use of modes other than the single-occupant vehicle. 4.1.2.3 Walk ‘n Bike Plan The City of San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan identifies improvements to support safe, comfortable, and convenient walking and biking within the City. The Plan identifies specific improvements including streetscape enhancements and a Class IV separated bikeway along Huntington Avenue, gap closures of Class II bicycle lanes along Sneath Lane, and a Class III bicycle route along Herman Street. 4.1.3 Regional Plans and Policies This section summarizes regional policies that relate to the Project. 4.1.3.1 MTC/ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation and land use plan intended to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. Plan Bay Area 2040 identifies various action items related to achieving these targets. The following action items relate to the Project: • Increase transportation access to growing and potential job centers; • Support regional growth by balancing housing, transit-oriented jobs, and industrial uses. 4.1.3.2 San Mateo City/County Association of Governments Congestion Management Program The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Mateo County and is authorized to set State and federal funding priorities for improvements affecting the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system. The C/CAG- designated CMP roadway system in South San Francisco includes State Route (SR) 82 (El Camino Real), U.S. 101, Interstate I-380, and I-280.12 C/CAG has adopted guidelines to reduce the number of net new vehicle trips generated by new land development. These guidelines apply to all developments that generate 100 or more net new peak hour vehicular trips on the CMP network and are subject to CEQA review. C/CAG calls for projects that meet the criteria to determine if a combination of acceptable measures is possible that has the capacity to “fully reduce,” through the use of a trip credit system, the demand for net new trips that a project is anticipated to generate on the CMP roadway network (including the first 100 trips). C/CAG has published a list of 12 C/CAG sets LOS standards for the CMP network, but these LOS standards do not apply to CEQA per SB-743. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 45 mitigation options in a memorandum that also outlines a process for obtaining C/CAG approval of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. 4.1.3.3 BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy BART’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD)13 Policy informs BART’s internal and external approach to development near BART stations. The following goals and strategies are relevant to the Project: • Goal B Sustainable Communities Strategy. Lead in the delivery of the region’s land use and transportation vision to achieve quality of life, economic, and greenhouse gas reduction goals. • Goal E Transportation Choice. Leverage land use and urban design to encourage non-auto transportation choices both on and off BART property, through enhanced walkability and bikeability, and seamless transit connectivity. • Strategy B1 Support Transit-Oriented Districts: Proactively support local jurisdictions in creating station area plans and land use policies that: a) encourage transit-supportive, mixed-use development on and around station properties, b) enhance the value of BART land, and c) enhance the performance of the BART system as a whole. • Strategy B2 Form partnerships with public agencies, developers and landowners, community development organizations, finance entities, and consider strategic land acquisition to help build TOD both on and off BART property. • Strategy C1 Utilize BART’s TOD Guidelines to ensure future development and investments seamlessly connect BART stations with surrounding communities • Strategy C3 Utilize strategies including mixed-use development, transportation demand management, and pedestrian-friendly urban design to encourage reverse-commute, off-peak, and non-work trips on BART and other modes of non-auto transportation, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 4.1.4 Policy Consistency Analysis The Project, including the associated proposed offsite improvements, is consistent with applicable adopted transit, bicycling, and walking policies within the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The Project and associated proposed offsite improvements would improve connectivity between the San Bruno BART Station and the Lindenville neighborhood; provide more direct pedestrian routes; add Class II bike lanes on Southline Avenue, in addition to Class I and Class III bike facilities within the Project area; extend the Centennial Way Trail; and provide a range of amenities and features within the Project site, including bicycle parking, showers, and changing facilities, among other features. The new Southline Avenue/Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection would include a signalized trail and pedestrian crossings with high-visibility crosswalks. Near the San Bruno BART Station, the Project includes circulation 13 BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy, Amended April 23 2020 https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20Transit-Oriented%20Development%20Policy_Amended2020-04-23.pdf Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 46 enhancements to Huntington Avenue, including widening sidewalks, upgrading curb ramps, providing high- visibility crosswalks, adding bulbouts, and extending the Centennial Way Trail. The Project supports public transit ridership by providing enhanced connectivity to BART and SamTrans, a dedicated signalized bus entrance to the SamTrans transit center, and offering a shuttle service to Caltrain. The Project includes a TDM program to meet a 45 percent mode share target required by the City. The Project is also consistent with regional plans including Plan Bay Area, C/CAG’s Congestion Management Program, and BART’s TOD Policy. While the Project site was not specifically identified as a Priority Development Area in Plan Bay Area (adjacent sites in the City of San Bruno were identified), its location in a Transit Priority Area near the San Bruno BART Station is consistent with Plan Bay Area’s goals to better integrate land use and transportation planning as well as BART’s goals to encourage reverse-commute trips to employment centers near stations. The Project’s Preliminary TDM program and associated circulation improvements are intended to fulfill C/CAG trip reduction requirements and is consistent with the above described goals by BART and C/CAG to encourage transit ridership and reduce vehicle trips. 4.2 VMT Analysis This section analyzes VMT for the Project in relation to the criteria in section 3.2.1. The Project would affect VMT in two ways: the addition of Project-related travel from land use changes, and the effect of the Southline Avenue extension on travel patterns within the surrounding area. These topics are analyzed below. 4.2.1.1 VMT Screening – Land Use Project SB 743 applies to the Project, which is a qualifying employment center Project located on an infill site within a transit priority area, as those terms are defined under Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code. As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), implementing SB 743, establishes a presumption of less than significance for VMT impacts related to qualifying land use Projects. The Project is located within a qualifying transit priority area, as it is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, including the San Bruno BART station and a frequent bus route (the SamTrans ECR route, which operates every 15 minutes), as shown in Figure 2-1. Both the San Bruno BART station and ECR route stops are considered major transit stops per Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code. A project qualifies for a presumption of a less than significant impact provided that project-specific and location-specific information supports this presumption. The following Project-specific and location-specific information supports a presumption of less than significant impact: • The Project’s proximity to BART provides a high-frequency regional transit connection to San Francisco, the East Bay, and northern San Mateo County, and its proximity to the SamTrans ECR route provides a frequent local transit connection within San Mateo County. Employee access to Caltrain via a shuttle service may further enable a regional transit connection to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the South Bay. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 47 • The Project includes infrastructure improvements to support direct connections to transit and active transportation, including widening sidewalks and extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station, adding pedestrian bulbouts and high-visibility crosswalks, and providing a shuttle service to connect to Caltrain. • The Project would allow for development of up to 2,800,000 SF (a maximum FAR of 2.4), which is substantially more dense than surrounding land uses as well as the existing land use at the Project site. The Project density is consistent with transit supportive development for station areas as defined in BART TOD Guidelines, which calls for medium to high density development that is greater than the community average within a 5 to 10-minute walk of stations. • The Project’s parking supply is below the City of South San Francisco requirements applicable to the existing zoning district and comparable office/R&D uses. The project, inclusive of Phase 1, would include vehicle parking up to a maximum of 2.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, which is less than the City’s standard requirement of 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet for similar business/professional office and R&D developments. The Project includes a TDM program to require that at least 45 percent of trips occur via transit, active transportation, and carpooling. • The Project is consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area to provide transit-oriented employment growth. Based on these features in combination with its transit-oriented location, both Phase 1 of the Project as well as the Project Buildout meet OPR’s criteria for a presumption of less than significant VMT impact. 4.2.1.2 VMT Analysis – Southline Avenue Extension The addition of Southline Avenue connecting Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue, a new street extension of approximately one quarter mile in length, would provide additional capacity for east-west travel in the Project area. Under existing conditions, there is no direct access between South Linden Avenue and Sneath Lane; this connection requires detouring about 1.3 miles either to the south on Huntington Avenue to Herman Avenue/Dollar Avenue, or detouring north on Huntington Avenue to South Spruce Avenue and Victory Avenue. To assess the effect of the new connection on local VMT, the City of South San Francisco Travel Model was used. The City’s model provides greater detail in the local transportation network compared to the C/CAG Model and allows for dynamic assignment of vehicles to the most efficient route, therefore accounting for changes in travel behavior due to new connections and roadways. Overall, the Southline Avenue extension is expected to result in a modest reduction in VMT produced by vehicles traversing the Project area, specifically affecting local traffic patterns by shifting east-west trips from South Spruce Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, and Scott Street toward the new shorter and more direct route. This modified circulation results in a slight reduction in VMT. Results are shown in Table 4-1. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 48 Table 4-1. VMT Effects of Southline Avenue Extension within South San Francisco and San Bruno Area Existing Daily Roadway Network VMT Daily Roadway Network VMT with Southline Avenue Extension Difference VMT in South San Francisco and San Bruno 5,077,500 5,072,600 -4,900 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 4.3 Site Plan Analysis This section analyzes the Project Buildout’s effects on local circulation within the extents of the Project site and related offsite improvement areas. Similarities and differences between the Project Buildout and Phase 1 Project are noted where applicable. Project Buildout conditions are analyzed in the Cumulative 2040 context, while Phase 1 Project conditions are analyzed in the 2024 context, reflecting anticipated construction timing. The Project’s site plan provides a preliminary design of building layouts and transportation infrastructure. Project-related infrastructure changes include the Southline Avenue extension, driveways, sidewalks, traffic signals, the Centennial Way Trail extension, reconfiguration of bus and pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART Station, and the realignment of the at-grade rail crossing of Caltrain. These components would be finalized over the course of the Phase 1 and Project Buildout design processes and designed to applicable standards. 4.3.1 Multimodal Analysis The following sections evaluate the Project’s proposed changes to existing circulation and transportation infrastructure, as shown in Figure 4-2. As detailed in this analysis, the proposed circulation and transportation improvements associated with the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would sufficiently accommodate the change in land use associated with an office/R&D campus in a manner consistent with applicable Caltrans and Highway Design Manual design standards, and would not introduce any design hazards. 4.3.1.1 Phase 1 Centennial Way Trail Extension and BART Station Access The Project would extend the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station, providing a 15- to 17- foot-wide multi-use path along the west side of Huntington Avenue. The path intends to serve both pedestrians and bicyclists in a shared use condition similar to the Centennial Way Trail to the north while retaining the bioswale area adjacent to the SamTrans Transit Center. Viswalk was used to analyze potential conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists along the Centennial Way trail extension during AM and PM peak hours. The analysis simulates pedestrian and bicycle behavior, interactions, and usage of space. Pedestrian and bicycle trips were distributed to reflect the proposed Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 49 Project’s travel demand, particularly the trips between the Project and BART and SamTrans. During peak hours, the path would serve about 550 to 650 pedestrians per hour traveling to and from the BART Station as well as about 100 to 150 bicyclists. Pedestrian and bicycle flows exiting the BART station were metered to reflect the BART train schedule during the AM and PM peak hours. The Viswalk analysis evaluated “pedestrian space,” described as the average amount of area available for a pedestrian walking along a trail, sidewalk or crosswalk. Pedestrian space can also be expressed as the inverse of pedestrian density. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition provides a qualitative description of the pedestrian space that can be used to evaluate the performance of pedestrian facilities. Since pedestrians will comprise the vast majority of users on the Centennial Way Trail during peak hours, analyzing pedestrian space helps illustrate how much room remains for bicyclists to pass pedestrians as well as the potential for conflicts between modes. This scale is summarized in Table 4-2 shows a worst-case condition for pedestrian space experienced by users of the Centennial Way Trail during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 4-2: Pedestrian Space Crowding Scale Pedestrian Space (square feet per pedestrian) Description > 60 Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter movements > 40-60 Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 24-40 Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 15-24 Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restricted > 8-15 Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower pedestrians <= 8 Speed severely restricted, frequent contact with other users Notes: Based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. The Viswalk results indicate that the proposed 15 to 17-foot-wide trail extension is sufficiently sized to accommodate forecasted pedestrian and bicycle volumes. The analysis identified hot spots for pedestrian space at the corners of the Huntington/BART and Huntington/Southline Avenue intersections, particularly the southwest corner of the Huntington/BART intersection during the AM peak hour due to the heavy pedestrian and bicycle flows existing the BART station. A visual inspection of the Viswalk simulation showed that while substantial crowding would occur at this corner as pedestrians wait for the ‘walk’ signal, the duration of the ‘walk’ signal and the lack of conflicts with vehicular movements would allow all pedestrians to cross in the same signal cycle. In essence, a high volume of pedestrians after a train arrival would control the speed of travel on the trail adjacent to the station, then spacing between pedestrians would increase walking farther from the station allowing bicyclists to comfortably pass. Therefore, the proposed design is unlikely to pose a hazardous condition. Project Improvement Locations Figure 1-3\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxdCentennial Way Trail Extension and BART Station Access Huntington Ave/Sneath Ln/Southline Ave/Maple Ave Signalized Intersection Southline Ave/South Linden Ave/Dollar Ave Signalized Intersection A B C D E Driveways Re-aligned at-grade crossing Potential shuttle stop locations Southline Ave/Central Project Signalized Intersection Dedicated bus signalized entrance Driveways Analyzed for Signal WarrantsX Add pedestrian crossing Add upgraded pedestrian crossing New cul-de-sac ADA sidewalk improvements Traffic signal modifications and new pedestrian crossing New Southline Avenue and Class II Bike Lane Location of southern mobility hub to be adjusted to south side of Building 7; refer to Project Description Figure 3-15 AM + PM Peak Hours Pedestrian Spacing Figure 4-3 >60 Pedestrian Space(square feet per pedestrian) Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter movements Signalized IntersectionOccasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restricted Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower pedestrians Speed severely restricted, frequent contact with other users Undefined >40-60 >24-40 >15-24 >8-15 <=8 AM PM HUNTING TON A V EN U E SNEATH LAN E TANFORAN A VE N U ESOUTHLINE AVENUEBus Transit Center B A R T S t a t i o n E n t r a n c e : ~ 2 5 0 - f t HUNTING TON A V EN U E SNEATH LAN E TANFORAN A VE N U ESOUTHLINE AVENUEBus Transit Center B A R T S t a t i o n E n t r a n c e : ~ 2 5 0 - f t \\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\AI Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 52 The Project would add a new crosswalk and pedestrian bulbout on the south side of the SamTrans Transit Center driveway to provide a more direct connection between the BART Station to the eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue. The eastern sidewalk would be rebuilt to achieve ADA compliance. Walking trips to and from the Project are likely to use both the eastern sidewalk and western trail along Huntington Avenue. 4.3.1.2 Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue Intersection The Project would create a new signalized intersection between Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue at the Project entrance. Huntington Avenue would be aligned with Maple Avenue, while Sneath Lane would be aligned with Southline Avenue. The western leg of the intersection would include a crossing for the Centennial Way Trail, while high visibility crosswalks would be provided on the remaining northern, southern, and eastern legs of the intersection. This trail crossing was analyzed as a protected phase without conflicting right-turn-on-red movements by southbound and eastbound vehicles. The intersection would change access to several adjacent driveways. Access to the BART maintenance facility driveway on the north side of Huntington Avenue would remain in the westbound direction but would be restricted in the eastbound direction. Northbound bus access from Huntington Avenue to the SamTrans Transit Center would be relocated to a signalized bus-only left turn (serving about five buses per hour throughout the day). Eastbound access to the SamTrans Transit Center would remain. Adding this intersection would also affect Tanforan Avenue. Tanforan Avenue would be separated from Maple Avenue while maintaining a connection with Huntington Avenue East. No vehicular Project access would occur on Tanforan Avenue. Consequently, traffic volumes would decline on Tanforan Avenue, particularly vehicle and truck traffic associated with industrial sites in Lindenville. 4.3.1.3 Southline Avenue/Central Project Driveway The Southline Avenue/Central Project Driveway intersection (at Buildings 1, 3, 6, and 7) would experience very high pedestrian volumes during peak hours as a result of its location between Project buildings, parking facilities, shuttle stops, and amenities. Crosswalk volumes are expected to be in excess of 500 pedestrians per crosswalk leg. Consequently, a pedestrian scramble phase (in which pedestrians cross all legs of the intersection at the same time) was analyzed as the optimized condition to separate pedestrian and vehicle movements. With a pedestrian scramble phase, conflicts between modes are expected to be minimal. 4.3.1.4 Southline Avenue/South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue Intersection Southline Avenue would connect to a realigned intersection of South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue on the east side of the Project. The northern leg of South Linden Avenue would align with Dollar Avenue, while Southline Avenue would connect across a realigned at-grade rail crossing of Caltrain to San Mateo Avenue. Eventually, it is anticipated that this crossing would be grade separated through a multi-agency planning and implementation process; both the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno have recommended that planning efforts proceed under the “Alternative 1” design, which would partially lower South Linden Avenue and partially raise the railway. The Project’s design is compatible with the preferred Alternative 1 design. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 53 The proposed grade separation project will be subject to a separate CEQA review and approval process not related to the Project; the grade separation project also requires public financing for implementation, which has not yet been obtained. 4.3.2 Signal Warrant Analysis A signal warrant analysis to determine the potential need for traffic signals at unsignalized intersections was conducted for unsignalized Project intersections to assess potential hazards associated with Project-related vehicle and pedestrian volumes in accordance with criteria in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Signal warrants were tested for the five new full-access driveways, shown on Figure 4-2, on the Project based on the Peak Hour and Pedestrian Volume methodologies described in the CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.04 and 4C.05. As shown in Table 4-3, no driveways meet peak hour signal warrants under either Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions. One driveway intersection at Maple Avenue (south of Building 4) would potentially meet pedestrian volume warrants; however, the Project’s proposed Rapid- Rectangular Flashing Beacon is expected to provide sufficient prioritization for pedestrians crossing at this location to fulfill the anticipated need. Therefore, no signal warrants are met under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions. Table 4-3: Signal Warrant Analysis Driveway Driveway Location Project Buildout Conditions Peak Hour Signal Warrant Met Pedestrian Volume Warrant Met A South Linden Avenue No No B Maple Avenue, south of Building 4 No No1 C Maple Avenue, west of Building 4 No No D Maple Avenue, east of Building 5 No No E Dollar Avenue No No Notes: Based on the CA-MUTCD 1Project would provide a Rapid-Rectangular Flashing Beacon to accommodate crossing needs Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. 4.3.3 Phase 1 At-Grade Rail Crossing Analysis The Project is located adjacent to the active rail corridor used by both Caltrain and limited evening freight activity. Under existing conditions, Caltrain operates five trains per hour, per direction during peak periods and one to two trains per hour, per direction during off-peak periods, while one to two trains per day operate during late evening hours. In 2022, the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project will increase Caltrain service to six trains per hour, per direction during peak periods. By 2040, Caltrain plans to operate Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 54 eight trains per hour, per direction, while California High Speed Rail would operate four trains per hour, per direction, for a total of 12 trains per hour, per direction. Vehicle traffic associated with the Project would increase the traffic volumes at the existing at-grade rail crossings at South Linden Avenue and at Scott Street; however, the Project (Phase 1 and Buildout) would not exacerbate potential safety hazards at these locations. as further described in Section 3.7.3.1 below. While a grade separation is planned, the at-grade crossing condition was analyzed to reflect a worst-case scenario given that the grade separation currently is unfunded and not yet approved. The Project’s design of Southline Avenue maintains flexibility for a future grade separation; in the interim, it includes a reconfigured at-grade rail crossing to connect Southline Avenue with South Linden Avenue. No changes to the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing would occur with the Project. 4.3.3.1 South Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing The rail crossing most directly affected by the Project is located on South Linden Avenue, immediately east of Dollar Avenue. The number of vehicles using this at-grade crossing increases due to both Project trips and the construction of Southline Avenue, which provides new east-west access connecting to Sneath Lane. Operations affecting this railroad crossing and nearby intersections were modeled using the VISSIM traffic operations analysis software. Vissim analyzes traffic by simulating and capturing the interactions between individual cars, trucks, buses, trains, pedestrians, and bicycles and can provide detailed queuing information and indication of potential for vehicles to not clear an at-grade crossing. Table 4-4 shows the storage space and simulated queuing activity under 2040 Plus Project Buildout conditions. With the Project Buildout, there is potential for queues exceeding available storage for the westbound movements at Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue. However, by synchronizing the traffic signal with the at-grade crossing, the Project would minimize potential risk of conflicts since vehicles would be flushed out of the rail crossing prior to a train approaching. The inclusion of medians would also enhance safety by inhibiting vehicles from traveling around crossing gates. Consequentially, the risk of conflicts under either the Phase 1 Project or Project Buildout would not change substantially relative to the existing condition. 4.3.3.2 Scott Street At-Grade Rail Crossing The second rail crossing potentially affected by the Project is located at Scott Street, located about 1,200 feet to the south of the Project. By adding Southline Avenue as a more direct connection between Huntington Avenue and San Mateo Avenue, the Project would decrease traffic volumes on Scott Street compared to No Project conditions. Because the total number of vehicles crossing the corridor at this location would decrease, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would not exacerbate potential safety hazards at this location. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 55 Table 4-4. Queuing at Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing – 2040 Project Buildout Intersection Movement Storage Space Average Queue Length (ft) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Queue exceeds storage? AM Peak Hour Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBT 80 170 300 Yes Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBL 60 160 290 Yes Linden Avenue/ San Mateo Avenue SBT 450 100 140 No Linden Avenue/ San Mateo Avenue SBL 450 190 250 No PM Peak Hour Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBT 80 530 600 Yes Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBL 60 530 600 Yes Linden Avenue/ San Mateo Avenue SBT 450 190 250 No Linden Avenue/San Mateo Avenue SBL 450 320 390 No Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 4.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis 4.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane to assess potential hazards associate with Project-related vehicle volumes. This intersection, which is presently all-way stop controlled, was selected based on the volume of Project-related vehicle traffic added along multiple approaches (Huntington Avenue and Herman Street). Signal warrants were tested based on the Peak Hour methodology described in the CA-MUTCD Section 4C.04. There are no other unsignalized intersections in the study area where the Project is expected to add substantial volume on unsignalized approaches. The Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meets the peak hour signal warrant under all analysis scenarios during the PM peak hour, including existing, 2024 No Project, 2024 plus Phase 1, 2040 No Project, and 2040 Plus Project Buildout conditions. The intersection experienced six injury collisions between 2015 and 2019. Phase 1 of the Project would add approximately 11 PM peak hour trips to the intersection during the PM peak hour, which is unlikely to materially change the intersection’s operations. The Project Buildout would add approximately 301 PM peak hour trips, which would more substantially affect intersection operations. The addition of Project Buildout-related trips may exacerbate risk of collisions Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 56 at this multi-lane stop-controlled intersection, which experienced eight reported injury collisions between 2014 and 2019 (five vehicle-vehicle collisions, two vehicle-pedestrian collisions, and one-vehicle-bicycle collision).14 4.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing Analysis Ten freeway off-ramps were analyzed based on Project trip assignment patterns to assess conditions where the addition of Project trips may result in hazards to road users. The study locations are listed below and shown in Figure 3-10. 1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue 3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue 4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue 5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue 6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real 7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real 8. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard 9. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue 10. US-101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Traffic counts were collected at the approaches and departures to the ten freeway on- and off-ramps during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak periods in 2017 and 2019 prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as further described above. During all counts, weather conditions were generally dry, no unusual traffic patterns were observed, and local school districts were in regular session. Table 4-5 and Table 4-6. present weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle queues at the ten US-101 off-ramp study locations under existing, 2024 (Phase 1), and 2040 (Project Buildout) conditions. Due to the Project’s access to these ten freeway ramps for US-101, I-280, and I-380 via several roadways and driveways, Project-related traffic would distribute across a number of potential routes including arterials and other roadways. Consequently, Project-related traffic volumes would not result in queues exceeding the total ramp storage distance to the freeway mainline at any of the study locations under any scenarios. As such, the Project is not expected to create or contribute to hazards resulting from speed differentials at off-ramp diverges on Caltrans facilities. 14 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2014-2019, retrieved via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 57 Table 4-5. Existing and 2024 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) Existing 2024 No Project 2024 Plus Project (Phase 1) Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane Left/Through 1,200 65 190 68 197 77 203 Right 150 65 72 67 62 68 66 2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 120 197 153 205 158 209 161 Left/Through 840 183 90 190 92 197 96 Through/Right 3,615 Right 80 54 51 58 51 62 57 3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 230 405 225 415 426 230 405 Through/Left/Right 1,335 1,015 1,372 959 1,391 1,335 1,015 4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 280 112 81 112 84 56 86 Left/Through 960 112 82 112 84 56 86 Right 280 24 130 24 136 24 140 5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left/Through 2,600 201 424 305 478 2,600 277 201 6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 980 246 303 248 303 248 303 Right 980 252 834 280 838 296 799 7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 520 131 340 135 352 157 355 Through/Left/Right 1,760 96 263 105 287 151 306 Right 330 88 245 96 267 118 277 8. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard Left 430 208 143 213 166 230 174 Through 720 209 224 220 240 230 254 9. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue Left 620 220 162 182 168 221 202 Right 100 69 40 58 40 59 42 10. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 473 176 492 188 492 182 Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 58 Table 4-5. Existing and 2024 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) Existing 2024 No Project 2024 Plus Project (Phase 1) Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM AM PM Right 740 45 33 46 34 46 34 Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software; * indicates additional analysis with SimTraffic software. Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity due to project volumes (none applicable). Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 Table 4-6. 2040 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) 2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project (Buildout) Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM 1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane Left/Through 1200 105 215 118 230 Right 150 74 91 104 103 2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 120 232 179 243 195 Left/Through 840 221 102 227 120 Through/Right 3615 Right 80 68 68 74 79 3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 230 405 225 415 426 Through/Left/Right 1,335 1,015 1,372 959 1,391 4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 280 115 87 65 88 Left/Through 960 116 87 65 89 Right 280 26 138 26 138 5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left/Through 2,600 201 424 305 478 6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 980 253 212 250 217 Right 980 331 668 359 637 7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 520 157 294 234 378 Through/Left/Right 1,760 170 271 271 312 Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 59 Table 4-6. 2040 Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) 2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project (Buildout) Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM Right 330 160 252 242 273 8. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard Left 430 278 253 360 270 Through 720 282 307 368 318 9. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue Left 620 208 182 272 226 Right 100 63 43 63 45 10. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 526 283 514 274 Right 740 46 39 47 39 Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software; * indicates additional analysis with SimTraffic software . Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity due to project volumes (none applicable). Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 4.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis This section analyzes the Project’s effects on the performance of transit services, including delay to transit vehicles and effects on transit capacity. 4.4.3.1 Transit Delay The Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would generate vehicle trips in the vicinity of existing transit services, which could potentially contribute toward delays for transit operations. To assess the Project’s potential effects on transit travel times and delay to transit riders, the VISSIM traffic analysis software was used to report total travel times for the ECR SamTrans bus route, which diverts via Sneath Lane from El Camino Real to serve the San Bruno BART Station. This route was analyzed because it provides the most frequent service and would be most heavily exposed to Project-related delays; findings would also apply for portions of the 140 and 141 SamTrans bus routes that overlap with the ECR route. Table 4-7 shows travel times along these transit routes under 2040 No Project and 2040 Plus Project Buildout conditions. Travel times are taken for the portion of each route that travels from El Camino Real along Sneath Lane to the BART Station, then returning to El Camino Real; this represents around one mile worth of travel. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 60 Table 4-7. Average ECR Travel Times between El Camino Real and the San Bruno BART Station Study Period Round Trip Transit Travel Time (Minutes) Existing 2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project Project Effect (2040) AM Peak Hour (ECR NB) 6 6 7 +1 AM Peak Hour (ECR SB) 7 7 8 +1 PM Peak Hour (ECR NB) 6 6 9 +3 PM Peak Hour (ECR SB) 8 8 11 +3 Notes: Travel times measured include the time needed to travel through the El Camino Real/Sneath Lane intersection via the route diversion through the San Bruno BART Station Transit Center. Values rounded to nearest minute. Based on Vissim simulation. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 The Project Buildout would result in a change of transit travel times for the ECR route totaling about one minute each way in the AM peak hour and three minutes each way in the PM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, congestion associated with added vehicle trips at the split phase signal at the El Camino Real/Sneath Lane intersection represents the primary source of delay. Given the route operates every 15 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods, and has a one-way travel time of about 110 minutes, this change in travel time is unlikely to affect the route’s performance overall or require additional buses to maintain comparable headways. Since traffic volumes will be lower under Phase 1 Project conditions, the Phase 1 Project is also unlikely to affect the performance of bus services. 4.4.3.2 Transit Capacity and Crowding The Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout are anticipated to add net new transit trips to both BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans during the AM and PM peak commute periods. BART and Caltrain currently experience peak period crowding along certain segments of key routes. A majority of transit trips would occur via BART (up to about 800 to 900 Project-related peak hour trips under Project Buildout conditions), while trips would also occur on Caltrain (300 to 400 peak hour trips) and SamTrans (70 to 80 peak hour trips). Phase 1 of the Project would add slightly less than one quarter of these Project Buildout totals. Project-related BART trips would largely travel in the reverse-commute direction in which BART has ample capacity. Under existing conditions, about 60 to 65 percent of BART passengers riding between San Bruno and South San Francisco are traveling northbound during the AM peak hour and Southbound during the PM peak hour. San Bruno Station mirrors these patterns, with most passengers entering the station during the AM peak hour and exiting during the PM peak hour. The Project would shift these patterns to nearly balance segment volumes between South San Francisco and San Bruno, and would shift station access patterns at San Bruno Station such that a majority of passengers would exit the station during the AM peak hour and enter the station during the PM peak hour. However, the total number of passengers entering/exiting the station or waiting on the platform would be similar to existing conditions but would occur in a reverse commute direction. As an example, under Project Buildout conditions, the total number of PM station entries would be 926, around 200 more entries than the existing 718 station entries in the AM Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 61 peak hour. In both the AM and PM peak periods, BART trains and platforms at San Bruno Station maintain sufficient capacity to handle these increases in passenger volumes. BART capacity is highly constrained on service segments through the Transbay Tube between Oakland and San Francisco. Based on existing ridership data, around 13 percent of BART riders entering or exiting the system at San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Millbrae Stations have an origin or destination in the East Bay and travel through the Transbay Tube (most stations in the East Bay are greater than 40 minutes away). The Project Buildout is expected to have similar travel patterns, adding approximately 100 to 120 trips to the Transbay Tube during the peak hours. While capacity is highly constrained in these periods, this represents a less than one percent contribution to total ridership on this segment of the system under existing conditions and by extension under cumulative conditions as well. In addition, trips would be spread across multiple trains during each peak hour, with an expected increase of only 15 to 20 riders per train, representing one to two additional passengers in each BART car. Therefore, the Project Buildout and Phase 1 Project would not materially affect BART performance or crowding. Table 4-8 summarizes the Project Buildout’s effect on total activity at San Bruno station, ridership on the segment nearest the Project, and ridership in the Transbay Tube. Table 4-8. Project Buildout Effect on Total Activity at San Bruno BART Station Study Period Direction Project Buildout BART Trip Generation 2019 Passenger Count 2019 + Project Buildout San Bruno BART Station Passenger Volumes AM Entries (Peak) 65 718 783 AM Exits (Reverse Peak) 816 187 1,003 PM Exits (Peak) 105 679 784 PM Entries (Reverse Peak) 678 248 926 San Bruno – South San Francisco Segment AM Northbound (Peak) 65 2,102 2,167 AM Southbound (Reverse Peak) 816 1,267 2,083 PM Southbound (Peak) 105 2,013 2,118 PM Northbound (Reverse Peak) 678 1,073 1,751 Transbay Tube (Embarcadero – West Oakland Segment) AM Westbound (Peak) 122 17,395 17,517 PM Eastbound (Peak) 102 15,839 15,941 Notes: In/out split for BART passengers assumed to be similar to vehicle trip generation. Source: BART, 2019, Fehr & Peers, 2020 Caltrain riders would access the Project via South San Francisco or San Bruno stations, depending on service schedules after completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. Trip distribution via Caltrain is expected to roughly mirror existing conditions, with about two-thirds of Project-related travel traveling northbound in the AM peak period and southbound in the PM peak period. This distribution would result Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 62 in approximately 233 northbound passengers during the AM peak period and 195 southbound passengers during the PM peak period. Spread across six trains per hour, per direction, the Project would add an average of about 30 to 40 passengers per train, or about five to six passengers per train car. Upon electrification, Caltrain would have capacity for 5,400 passengers per hour, per direction – about 900 passengers per train operating six trains per hour, per direction. Given the Project Buildout’s contribution to Caltrain capacity would be about four percent or less, it is anticipated that the Project Buildout and Phase 1 Project would have a relatively minor effect on Caltrain capacity. A relatively small share of Project travel is expected to occur via SamTrans – about 70 to 80 peak hour trips, which would roughly translate to five to ten passengers per bus. SamTrans presently has sufficient capacity to handle this demand and is likely to be able to accommodate Project trips in the future. 4.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis The project would add approximately 1,000 to 1,100 pedestrian and bicycle trips to and from the site during the AM and PM peak hours (of which 90 percent would be walking or biking to or from transit). In particular, the Project is likely to add bicycle trips along the Centennial Way Trail, Huntington Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Sneath Lane, which are designated bicycle routes by the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The Project Buildout would also add vehicle trips along designated bicycle routes and in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. Such areas would include Huntington Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Sneath Lane, San Bruno Avenue, and the edges of downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. However, since Project traffic would be distributed across several routes accessing freeway ramps, walking and biking conditions are not expected to be adversely affected by Project Buildout or Phase 1 traffic volumes relative to No Project conditions. 4.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis The Project’s primary potential to affect emergency vehicle access would be through design features that do not fully accommodate emergency vehicles, or through Project-generated vehicle traffic that would cause emergency vehicles to be slowed or unable to access the site or surrounding areas. The Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would increase vehicular delay on several roadways and at several nearby intersections; however, this delay is not bidirectional, and emergency vehicles retain the ability to utilize other traffic lanes to circumvent traffic congestion. In particular, the San Bruno Police Station at 1177 Huntington Avenue would retain the ability to travel both with and against the flow of vehicle traffic should an emergency response be necessary directly from the station (emergency responses from police vehicles usually occur from the field). In addition, the Project provides an additional route for emergency vehicles to access the Project vicinity through construction of the new intersection at Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, and Southline Avenue. Consequently, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout are not anticipated to adversely affect emergency vehicle operations. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 63 5. Impacts and Mitigations 5.1 Vehicular Traffic 5.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact TRANS-1A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-1B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 4.2, the proposed Project meets the criteria set by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and CEQA statute to establish the presumption of a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Specifically, the Project is an employment center located within ½ mile of a major transit station and high quality transit corridor, with a parking ratio below what would otherwise be required by the City for projects of this type, and Project elements designed to encourage transit use and reduce the number of automobile trips to and from the site. As such, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less- than-significant impact on VMT, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact TRANS-2A: Development of the proposed Southline Avenue extension under Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled due to its short distance, and nature as a connector rather than a regional roadway facility. (Less- than-Significant) Impact TRANS-2B: Development of the proposed Southline Avenue extension under Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled due to its short distance, and nature as a connector rather than a regional roadway facility. (Less- than-Significant) As documented in Section 4.2, the proposed Southline Avenue extension is not expected to increase VMT as a street extension one quarter mile in length with mostly local circulation effects. Therefore, the Southline Avenue extension associated with the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than- significant impact on VMT, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 64 5.2 Design Hazards 5.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards Impact TRANS-3A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would not increase hazards to street users due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-3B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would not increase hazards to street users due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 4.3.1, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout include a range of improvements to vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure that would be consistent with design standards and compatible with the intensity of proposed employment uses. Therefore, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on design hazards, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. 5.2.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing Impact TRANS-4A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-4B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 4.4.2, neither the Phase 1 Project vehicle trips nor the Project Buildout vehicle trips would exceed ramp storage capacities at any of the intersections studied, and would not lead to potential hazardous interference with the freeway mainline. Therefore, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on freeway ramp queuing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required 5.2.3 At-Grade Rail Crossings Impact TRANS-5A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 65 Impact TRANS-5B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant) The Project would result in substantial increased traffic volumes at the realigned at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue. As discussed in section 4.3.3 this increase in traffic volumes would lengthen vehicle queues across available storage area. However, the synchronization of traffic signals and presence of medians would limit the risk of collisions associated with Project-related traffic. Synchronized traffic signals included in the Project would minimize potential risk of conflicts since vehicles would be flushed out of the rail crossing prior to a train approaching. The inclusion of medians enhances safety by inhibiting vehicles from traveling around crossing gates through provision of a physical barrier to doing so. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-6A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would decrease vehicle volumes, and therefore vehicle queues, at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-6B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would decrease vehicle volumes, and therefore vehicle queues, at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than-Significant) The Project would result in a net decrease in traffic volumes crossing the Caltrain corridor along Scott Street. As discussed in Section 4.3.3, some vehicle traffic crossing the Caltrain corridor at Scott Street would shift to Southline Avenue, resulting in a net decrease in vehicle volumes and queues on Scott Street. As a result, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on the Scott Street at- grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. 5.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Impact TRANS-7A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, and as such the Phase 1 Project results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-7B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, and as such the Project Buildout results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 66 As discussed in Section 4.3.2, none of the Project’s five unsignalized driveways meet peak hour signal warrants, and the Project provides appropriate pedestrian crossing treatments at unsignalized crossings. As a result, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic signal warrants, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-8A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the City of San Bruno’s Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection; however, conditions would not change materially from existing conditions, and as such the Phase 1 Project results in a less than significant impact at this location. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-8B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) As documented in Section 4.4.1, the Project would result in a net increase of about 11 PM vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions and 301 PM peak hour trips under Project Buildout conditions at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue. This intersection meets CA-MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour under Existing, 2024 No Project, and 2040 No Project conditions. The addition of Project Buildout traffic would substantially contribute to the need for a signal at this intersection; Phase 1 traffic would not materially change conditions relative to no Project conditions. As such, the Project Buildout would have a significant impact at this location, while Phase 1 would have a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: The Project Sponsor should provide a fair share contribution towards implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue to alleviate potential conflicts associated with Project Buildout-related traffic. However, the traffic signal is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a plan or mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this mitigation occurs will be implemented. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Project Buildout impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would be remain significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable) 5.3 Emergency Vehicle Access Impact TRANS-9A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-9B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 67 As documented in Section 4.4.5, the Project would not include design elements that would hinder emergency access, and all roadways and facilities will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles including fire trucks and fire engines. The Project would result in increased travel times and vehicular delay on Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane near the Project, particularly for the portion of Sneath Lane between the Project and El Camino Real during the PM peak hour. While this increase in vehicular delay is expected to also affect emergency vehicles, Sneath Lane includes additional right of way in the form of the Class II Bicycle Lane that allows for vehicles to yield to emergency vehicles that have engaged sirens and flashers. Thus, while there may be some delay to emergency vehicles with the Project, it is not expected to adversely affect emergency vehicle access or response times. Therefore, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required. 5.4 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Impact TRANS-10A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-10B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 4.1, the Project exhibits consistency with plans, policies, and programs adopted by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, C/CAG, BART, and MTC. The Project would provide employment near regional transit, would enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support transit access, would connect local street networks, and would include a TDM program that meets City requirements. Therefore, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs and would have a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS-11A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would increase travel times for some bus routes, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-11B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would increase travel times for some bus routes, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than- Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 68 As documented in Section 4.4.3, the Project would increase average transit travel times on SamTrans ECR bus route (and portions of SamTrans routes 140 and 141) by one to three minutes, but is unlikely to affect the route’s performance overall or require additional buses to maintain comparable headways. No other routes operating in the Project vicinity would have increased average transit times due to the Project. The Project would also add transit ridership to BART, SamTrans, and Caltrain, but would not materially contribute to overcrowding. In addition, the Project delivers pedestrian infrastructure designed to enhance access to the SamTrans transit center and BART station. Therefore, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less than significant impact on transit performance and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-12A: Development of the proposed Phase 1 Project would not detrimentally affect the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-12B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout would not detrimentally affect the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 4.4.4, the Project would not degrade the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The Project would extend the Centennial Way Trail, enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART Station, and provide new bike lane and sidewalk facilities. Therefore, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less than significant impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 69 6. Partial Circulation Network Alternative The Partial Circulation Network Alternative considers the same Phase 1 and Project Buildout land use and TDM program but with fewer infrastructure changes associated with the Project. Specifically, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would include a partial buildout of Southline Avenue but omit the new street connection between Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue as well as pedestrian and bicycle improvements to enhance access to BART and SamTrans facilities and extend the Centennial Way Trail (referred to as the “Partial Circulation Network Alternative”; see Figure 6-1). This section analyzes the transportation and circulation effects of the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions. 6.1 Plan and Policy Consistency Analysis The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would remain consistent with local and regional plans and policies. The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not implement the connection of Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station consistent with adopted plans and policies by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, C/CAG, BART and MTC. However, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not necessarily preclude these changes in the future, and is therefore consistent with applicable plans and policies. The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would remain consistent with regional plans and policies given the Project’s proximity to transit (see Section 4.1). 6.2 VMT Analysis The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would meet OPR’s criteria for a presumption of less than significant VMT impact based on the Project’s proximity to the San Bruno BART Station and the SamTrans ECR route (see Section 4.2). Transit access conditions would be more challenging under the Partial Circulation Network Alternative, although the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would implement a high-density land use in proximity to a high quality transit corridor, include a parking supply below City requirements for comparable projects, and implement a TDM program to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share. Without the Southline Avenue extension to Sneath Lane, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not realize the slight decrease in VMT associated with more direct trips between San Bruno and the Lindenville District in South San Francisco. However, this would not affect the presumption of less than significant VMT impact for the Project as a whole. Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Site Plan Figure 6-1\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 72 Table 6-1. Queuing at Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing – Partial Circulation Network Alternative (2040 Project Buildout) Intersection Movement Storage Space Average Queue Length (ft) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Queue exceeds storage? AM Peak Hour Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBT 80 570 590 Yes Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBL 60 560 580 Yes Linden Avenue/ San Mateo Avenue SBT 450 100 130 No Linden Avenue/ San Mateo Avenue SBL 450 200 240 No PM Peak Hour Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBT 80 230 470 Yes Southline Avenue / Dollar Avenue WBL 60 220 460 Yes Linden Avenue/ San Mateo Avenue SBT 450 190 420 No Linden Avenue/San Mateo Avenue SBL 450 320 390 No 6.3.3.2 Scott Street At-Grade Rail Crossing Without the connection between Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase traffic volumes on the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing. However, queues are not expected to exceed available storage on Scott Street as shown in Table 6-2. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less than significant impact on the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 73 Table 6-2. Queuing at Scott Street At-Grade Rail Crossing – Partial Circulation Network Alternative (2040 Project Buildout) Intersection Movement Storage Space Average Queue Length (ft) 95th Percentile Queue Length (ft) Queue exceeds storage? AM Peak Hour Scott Street / Herman Street WB 360 60 120 No Scott Street / San Mateo Avenue EB 360 60 80 No PM Peak Hour Scott Street / Herman Street WB 360 130 240 No Scott Street / San Mateo Avenue EB 360 40 90 No 6.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis 6.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meeting the peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour for both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions such that a Significant Impact would occur. Phase 1 would add 133 PM peak hour trips to this intersection, while Project Buildout would add approximately 571 PM peak hour trips. Under the Partial Circulation Network Alternative, the addition of Phase 1 and Project Buildout-related trips may exacerbate the risk of collisions at this multi-lane stop-controlled intersection, which experienced eight reported injury collisions between 2014 and 2019 (five vehicle-vehicle collisions, two vehicle-pedestrian collisions, and one-vehicle-bicycle collision).15 6.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queueing Analysis The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in queues exceeding the total ramp storage distance to the freeway mainline at one study location (I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue) under Project Buildout conditions such that a Significant Impact would occur. Under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would distribute Project-related vehicle trips across ten freeway ramps for US-101, I-280, and I-380, with slightly more trips using US-101 ramps and slightly fewer trips using ramps to I-380 and I-280. Phase 1 results are shown in Table 6-3, while Project Buildout results are shown in Table 6-4. In addition to the I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno 15 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2014-2019, retrieved via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 74 Avenue, queues may exceed storage distance at several other ramp approaches under Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, but there are no Phase 1- or Project-related trips added to these ramps. Table 6-3. Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues – Partial Circulation Network Alternative (Phase 1) Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) Existing 2024 No Project 2024 Plus Phase 1 (Partial Circulation) Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane Left/Through 1,200 65 190 68 197 77 203 Right 150 65 72 67 62 68 66 2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 120 197 153 205 158 209 161 Left/Through 840 183 90 190 92 197 96 Through/Right 3,615 Right 80 54 51 58 51 62 57 3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 230 85 202 89 211 91 207 Through/Left/Right 1,280 334 660 365 701 325 701 4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 280 112 81 112 84 56 86 Left/Through 960 112 82 112 84 56 86 Right 280 24 130 24 136 24 140 5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 560 256 345 260 391 295 419 Right (through) 2,400 69 68 93 86 102 103 6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 980 246 303 248 303 248 303 Right 980 252 834 280 838 296 799 7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 520 131 340 135 352 157 355 Through/Left/Right 1,760 96 263 105 287 151 306 Right 330 88 245 96 267 118 277 8. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard Left 430 208 143 213 166 230 174 Through 720 209 224 220 240 230 254 9. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 75 Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) Existing 2024 No Project 2024 Plus Phase 1 (Partial Circulation) Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM AM PM Left 620 220 162 182 168 221 202 Right 100 69 40 58 40 59 42 10. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 473 176 492 188 492 182 Right 740 45 33 46 34 46 34 Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software; * indicates additional analysis with Simtraffic software. Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity due to Project-related trips (none applicable). Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 Table 6-4. Cumulative Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queues - Partial Circulation Network Alternative (Project Buildout) Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) 2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project (Buildout) 2040 Plus Project Buildout (Partial Circulation) Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane Left/Through 1,200 105 215 118 230 198 254 Right 150 74 91 104 103 356 74 2. I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 120 232 179 243 195 239 200 Left/Through 840 221 102 227 120 224 123 Through/Right 3,615 Right 80 68 68 74 79 73 76 3. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 230 93 225 419 240 418 240 Through/Left/Right 1,335 394 818 1,171 778 1,633 801 4. US-101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left 280 115 87 65 88 130 91 Left/Through 960 116 87 65 89 130 91 Right 280 26 138 26 138 64 140 5. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue* Left/Through 2,600 277 603 2,299 1,040 1,723 1,074 Right 560 324 335 961 498 818 505 Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 76 Approach Lanes Storage Distance (ft) 2040 No Project 2040 Plus Project (Buildout) 2040 Plus Project Buildout (Partial Circulation) Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length AM PM AM PM AM PM 6. I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 980 253 212 250 217 257 265 Right 980 331 668 359 637 338 851 7. I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real* Left 520 157 294 234 378 178 360 Through/Left/Right 1,760 170 271 271 312 227 328 Right 330 160 252 242 273 207 305 8. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard Left 430 278 253 360 270 384 245 Through 720 282 307 368 318 392 311 9. US 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue Left 620 208 182 272 226 280 255 Right 100 63 43 63 45 62 44 10. US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 526 283 514 274 577 302 Right 740 46 39 47 39 591 344 Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software; * indicates additional analysis with Simtraffic software. Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity due to Project-related trips. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020 6.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis Without any changes to transit center access, traffic signals, or added vehicle traffic on Sneath Lane, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not substantially affect SamTrans operations at the San Bruno BART transit center compared to Project and No Project conditions. No changes to transit capacity and crowding would occur relative to the Project condition. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less than significant impact on transit performance. 6.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis 6.4.4.1 Effects on BART Station Access The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not address bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Specific Plan Area and San Bruno BART Station. Instead, bicycle and pedestrian access to BART would occur via existing sidewalks and crosswalks. While these facilities could accommodate the roughly 200 peak hour BART passengers generated by the Phase 1 Project, crowding is expected to occur at existing Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 77 pedestrian facilities with the 800 to 900 peak hour passengers under Project Buildout conditions. Figure 3-1 illustrates a VisWalk simulation of pedestrian crowding at the BART Station entrance under Project Buildout conditions. Specifically, the northwestern curb ramp at the BART Station entrance would be substantially crowded during the AM peak hour, while the northeastern curb ramp would be substantially crowded during the PM peak hour. This crowding may result in a hazardous condition if not all pedestrians are accommodated on the sidewalk, and for interactions between pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to or from the Centennial Way Trail. The design and operations of the traffic signal and crosswalks contribute to crowding due to the relatively long wait times for pedestrians crossing the street and single marked crosswalk across Huntington Avenue. This configuration may prompt some pedestrians to cross in the unmarked crosswalk on the southern side of the intersection rather than waiting to cross to the marked northern crosswalk. The unmarked southern crosswalk has a longer crossing distance that is less likely to be accomplished in the allocated walk time and may leave some pedestrians crossing against traffic on Huntington Avenue or waiting in the median. The combination of limited sidewalk capacity, auto-oriented signal operations, and crosswalk design poses a potentially hazardous condition with the addition of trips by pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to and from the San Bruno BART Station under Project Buildout conditions with the Partial Circulation Network Alternative such that a Significant Impact would occur. Figure 6-2. Pedestrian Space during AM and PM Peak Hours, Project Buildout with Partial Circulation Network Alternative 6.4.4.2 Other Effects Under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase vehicle trips along designated bicycle routes and in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. Such areas would include Herman Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Sneath Lane, San Bruno Avenue, Spruce Avenue, and the edges of downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. However, since Project traffic would be distributed across several routes accessing freeway ramps, walking and biking conditions Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 78 are not expected to be adversely affected by the Partial Circulation Network Alternative relative to No Project conditions. 6.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis Neither the Phase 1 nor Project Buildout conditions under the Partial Circulation Network Alternative are anticipated to substantially affect emergency vehicle operations relative to the No Project conditions. The proposed site plan fully accommodates emergency vehicles and would not include design features that would cause emergency vehicle to be slowed or unable to access the site or surrounding areas. 6.5 Impacts and Mitigations 6.5.1 Vehicular Traffic 6.5.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact TRANS-13A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Phase 1 conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-13B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Project Buildout conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 6.2, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not change the Project’s proximity to transit and presumption of less than significant impact to VMT. While the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not realize the slight decrease in VMT associated with more direct trips between San Bruno and the Lindenville District in South San Francisco, the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout under the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required. 6.5.2 Design Hazards 6.5.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards Impact TRANS-14A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Phase 1 conditions, due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than- Significant) Impact TRANS-14B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Project Buildout conditions, due to a design Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 79 feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than- Significant) The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would provide onsite circulation changes consistent with design standards, but would not provide access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station under the Phase 1 Project or Project Buildout. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on design hazards, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. 6.5.2.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing Impact TRANS-15A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-15B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would cause vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, to exceed storage capacity at one freeway ramp (I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue) resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) As documented in Section 6.4.2, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative does not cause vehicle trips associated with the Phase 1 Project to exceed ramp storage capacities at any ramps studied; however, queues would exceed ramp storage capacity due to Project-related travel at one study location (I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue) under Project Buildout conditions (shown in Table 6-4). As such, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a significant impact at this location at Project Buildout, while Phase 1 would have a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: Although the purpose of the Partial Circulation Network Alternative is to evaluate a condition where the extension of Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane does not occur, this street extension as included in the Proposed Project would mitigate ramp queueing conflicts associated with Project Buildout- related traffic. However, without the direct implementation by the Project Sponsor, no plan or funding mechanism exists to implement this mitigation since it is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of South San Francisco or the City of San Bruno where the mitigation is jointly located. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Partial Circulation Network Alternative impact to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There are no other feasible mitigation measures. (Significant and Unavoidable) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 80 6.5.2.3 At-Grade Rail Crossings Impact TRANS-16A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-16B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant) The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in increased traffic volumes at the realigned at- grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions. However, Project-related crossing improvements would limit the risk of collisions associated with increased traffic, consistent with the Phase 1 and Project site plans. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-17A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-17B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than- Significant) The Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle traffic across the at-grade rail crossing at Scott Street, but would not increase vehicle queues beyond available storage under the Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions. As a result, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative, under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions, would have a less-than-significant impact on the Scott Street at- grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 81 6.5.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Impact TRANS-18A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Phase 1 conditions, and as such the Phase 1 Project results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-18B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Project Buildout conditions, and as such the Project Buildout results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) None of the Project’s five unsignalized driveways meet peak hour signal warrants under Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions with the Partial Circulation Network Alternative as described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.4.1. The Project would provide appropriate pedestrian crossing treatments at these unsignalized crossings. As a result, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic signal warrants, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-19A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) Impact TRANS-19B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) As documented in Section 6.4.1, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in a net increase of about 133 PM vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions and 571 PM peak hour trips under Project Buildout conditions at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue. This intersection meets CA-MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour under Existing, 2024 No Project, and 2040 No Project conditions. The addition of Phase 1 and Project Buildout traffic would substantially contribute to the need for a signal at this intersection. As such, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a significant impact at this location. Mitigation Measures: The Project Sponsor should provide a fair share contribution towards implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue to alleviate potential conflicts associated with Project Buildout-related traffic. However, the traffic signal is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 82 mitigation occurs will be implemented. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Project Buildout impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would be remain significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable) Emergency Vehicle Access Impact TRANS-20A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Phase 1 conditions. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-20B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Project Buildout conditions. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 6.4.5, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not include design elements that would hinder emergency access, and all roadways and facilities will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required 6.5.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Impact TRANS-21A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Phase 1 conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-21B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Project Buildout conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than- Significant) As documented in Section 6.1, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not implement the connection of Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station consistent with adopted plans and policies by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, C/CAG, BART and MTC. However, the Alternative would not necessarily preclude these changes in the future, and therefore the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs and would have a less than significant impact. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 83 Impact TRANS-22A: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-22B: Development of the proposed Partial Circulation Network Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Section 6.4.3, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not substantially affect transit operations or contribute to transit overcrowding. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative under both Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on transit performance and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-23A: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Alternative would not decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the Project under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a less- than-significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-23B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Alternative would decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the Project under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) As documented in Section 4.4.4, the Project Buildout Partial Circulation Network Alternative would result in substantial crowding to pedestrian and bicycle facilities near the San Bruno BART Station entrance. While existing facilities could accommodate Phase 1 pedestrian volumes, existing sidewalk, crosswalk, and signal facilities are insufficient to accommodate Project Buildout pedestrian volumes, and may pose a hazardous condition due to crowding. Therefore, the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a less than significant impact under Phase 1 conditions, while the Partial Circulation Network Alternative would have a significant impact under Project Buildout conditions. Mitigation Measure: Although the purpose of the Partial Circulation Network Alternative is to evaluate a condition where the extension of Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane and associated changes to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure do not occur, the implementation of pedestrian improvements at the San Bruno BART Station entrance as included in the Proposed Project would alleviate this potentially significant impact under Project Buildout conditions. Pedestrian improvements would include adding a bulbout, curb ramps, and marked high-visibility crosswalk on the southern leg of the intersection, a high-visibility crosswalk on the northern leg of the intersection, and retiming the signal to include pedestrian recall. However, without the direct implementation by the Project Sponsor, no funding mechanism exists to implement this Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 84 mitigation since it is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of South San Francisco or City of San Bruno where the mitigation is jointly located. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Partial Circulation Network Alternative impact to a less-than- significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There are no other feasible mitigation measures. (Significant and Unavoidable) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 85 7. Reduced Underground Parking Alternative The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative considers a similar Phase 1 Project with a modified parking layout that places all parking at- or above-grade instead of below-grade. The Phase 1 Project footprint would expand to cover 80 Tanforan, where a parking garage would be constructed. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would provide a total of 1,095 parking spaces for approximately 684,700 square feet (1.6 per 1,000 square feet) in Phase 1. Table 7-1 compares the Phase 1 Project with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative. The remaining Project Buildout projections, except as modified for Phase 1, remain the same as the Project. Table 7-1. Phase 1 Project vs. Reduced Underground Parking Alternative Scenario Phase 1 Project Buildout Project Reduced Underground Parking Alternative Office / R&D 612,700 615,000 2,730,300 Public Restaurant/Retail 16,400 11,800 11,800 Other Amenities 71,800 57,900 57,900 Total Active Land Use 700,900 684,700 2,800,000 Vehicle Parking Stalls (# south of Southline Avenue) 1,103 to 1,379 (1,103 to 1,194) 1,095 (1,095) 4,594 to 5,395 (1,194) Vehicle Trip Generation AM 656 617 2,293 PM 605 565 2,073 Daily 5,458 4,986 18,007 Net New Vehicle Trip Generation AM 485 446 2,122 PM 455 415 1,923 Daily 3,954 3,482 16,503 As illustrated in Table 7-1, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes reductions in building area and parking compared to the Project, which would result in fewer vehicle trips. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes a 2,300 square foot increase in office space, a 4,600 square foot decrease in public restaurant/retail space, and a 13,900 square foot decrease in amenity space. Based on the trip generation methodology described in Section 3.5, these changes would result in a net decrease in vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions. The total Project Buildout square footage would remain unchanged, although total office space may increase by up to 18,500 square feet. Moreover, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes 284 fewer parking spaces than the Phase 1 Project’s higher parking option that Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 86 was analyzed in Sections 1-5 (1,379 spaces, of which 1,194 were south of Southline Avenue). Because there is no increase to building square footage or parking supply and driveway locations would not change, it is presumed that Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip generation and driveway volumes would not increase under the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative, and trip distribution and assignment would remain unchanged. Consequently, the trip generation estimates provided in Table 7-1, likely overestimate the actual trip generation associated with Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions. This section analyzes the transportation and circulation effects of the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under both the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions. 7.1 Plan and Policy Consistency Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would remain consistent with local and regional plans and policies. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would implement all transportation infrastructure changes identified in the Phase 1 Project, including the connection of Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station consistent with adopted plans and policies by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, C/CAG, BART and MTC. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would remain consistent with regional plans and policies given the Project’s proximity to transit (described in Section 4.1). 7.2 VMT Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would meet OPR’s criteria for a presumption of less than significant VMT impact based on the Project’s proximity to the San Bruno BART Station and the SamTrans ECR route (see Section 4.2). The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would implement a high-density land use in proximity to a high-quality transit corridor, include a parking supply below City requirements for comparable projects, and implement a TDM program to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share. 7.3 Site Plan Analysis As shown in Figure 7-1, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not substantively change circulation within the Specific Plan area, and therefore would not pose any design hazards. The primary circulation change associated with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would be extending the park walkway along Tanforan Avenue to Dollar Avenue. Otherwise, Project driveways would remain in the same locations under the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative, including a single right in/right out driveway for the amenity building, a signalized driveway connecting to Southline Avenue for the primary garage entrance, and an unsignalized driveway connecting to Dollar Avenue as the secondary garage entrance. Access to the shuttle and ride-hailing mobility hubs would occur at the Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue driveways, along with pedestrian connections to adjacent buildings. No other new driveways or changes to circulation patterns would occur. The site plan would retain all other circulation elements, including adding Southline Avenue as an east-west connection between Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue, the realignment of the South Linden Avenue Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 87 at-grade rail crossing, and driveways connecting to Southline Avenue, Dollar Avenue, Maple Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Tanforan Avenue. Southline Avenue would include bike lanes connecting to the Centennial Way Trail, and all new or modified streets would include new sidewalks and curb ramps. Proposed infrastructure within the Specific Plan area would be consistent with design standards and compatible with the intensity of proposed employment uses. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not include changes to streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle facilities, or transit circulation outside of the Specific Plan area other than the changes listed above. The effects of the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative are consistent with discussion provided in Section 4.4.4. 7.3.1 Signal Warrant Analysis Driveway volumes would not materially change relative to Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions; therefore, no driveways would meet peak hour vehicle or pedestrian volume signal warrants under the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative. 7.3.2 At-Grade Rail Crossing Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not affect traffic volumes crossing the at-grade rail crossing of Caltrain relative to the Phase 1 Project. Like the Phase 1 Project, the synchronization of traffic signals and presence of medians in the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would limit the risk of collisions associated with Project-related traffic. Consequently, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less than significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing. 7.4 Offsite Transportation Analysis 7.4.1 Signal Warrant Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meeting the peak hour signal warrant during PM peak hour for both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions consistent with the analysis in Section 4.4.1. Phase 1 would add 11 PM peak hour trips to this intersection, while Project Buildout would add approximately 301 PM peak hour trips. As with the Project, although Phase 1 is unlikely to materially change the intersection’s operations, the addition of Project Buildout-related trips may exacerbate the risk of collisions at this multi-lane stop- controlled intersection, which experienced eight reported injury collisions between 2014 and 2019.16 16 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), 2014-2019, retrieved via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Revised Specific Plan Alternative Site PlanFigure 7-1\\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxd Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 89 7.4.2 Freeway Ramp Queueing Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not change the trip generation, distribution, or assignment relative to the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout; therefore, the effects on freeway ramp queueing would remain consistent with the analysis provided in Section 4.4.2. No offramps would experience queues exceeding storage capacities under Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative. 7.4.3 Transit Performance Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not change transit performance relative to the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout; consequently, the effects on transit delay and crowding would remain consistent with the analysis provided in Section 4.4.3. 7.4.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Analysis Under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase vehicle trips along designated bicycle routes and in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity consistent with the analysis provided in Section 4.4.4. Such areas would include Herman Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Sneath Lane, San Bruno Avenue, Spruce Avenue, and the edges of downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. However, since traffic would be distributed across several routes accessing freeway ramps, walking and biking conditions are not expected to be adversely affected by the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative relative. By extending the greenway along Tanforan Avenue, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would enhance east-west pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the BART Station and Tanforan Avenue. 7.4.5 Emergency Vehicle Analysis The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative is not anticipated to substantially affect emergency vehicle operations relative to the No Project conditions. The proposed site plan fully accommodates emergency vehicles and would not include design features that would cause emergency vehicle to be slowed or unable to access the site or surrounding areas. 7.5 Impacts and Mitigations 7.5.1 Vehicular Traffic 7.5.1.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact TRANS-24A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Phase 1 conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-24B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, under Project Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 90 Buildout conditions, due to the Project’s location, transit-oriented nature, and other characteristics. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.2 and 7.2, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not change the Project’s proximity to transit and presumption of less than significant impact to VMT. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative is an employment center located within ½ mile of a major transit station and high quality transit corridor, with a parking ratio below what would otherwise be required by the City for projects of this type, and Project elements designed to encourage transit use and reduce the number of automobile trips to and from the site. As such, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required. 7.5.2 Design Hazards 7.5.2.1 Geometric Design Hazards Impact TRANS-25A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Phase 1 conditions, due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than- Significant) Impact TRANS-25B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase hazards to street users, under Project Buildout conditions, due to a design feature or land uses incompatible with the surrounding street network. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.3 and 7.3, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative includes a range of improvements to vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure that would be consistent with design standards and compatible with the intensity of proposed employment uses. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on design hazards under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. 7.5.2.2 Freeway Ramp Queuing Impact TRANS-26A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 91 Impact TRANS-26B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not add vehicle trips to existing freeway off-ramp vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, that exceed storage capacity resulting in a potentially hazardous condition, and as such would have a less than significant impact on freeway ramp queuing. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.2 and 7.4.2, vehicle trips associated with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not exceed ramp storage capacities at any of the intersections studied, and would not lead to potential hazardous interference with the freeway mainline. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on freeway ramp queuing under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None Required 7.5.2.3 At-Grade Rail Crossings Impact TRANS-27A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-27B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase vehicle queues beyond available storage at the South Linden Avenue grade crossing, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not exacerbate risk of collisions; therefore, it would have a less than significant impact on at-grade rail crossing hazards. (Less-than-Significant) The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in increased traffic volumes at the realigned at- grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions as documented in Sections 4.3.3 and 7.3.2. However, Project-related crossing improvements would limit the risk of collisions associated with increased traffic, consistent with the Phase 1 and Project Buildout site plans. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-28A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Phase 1 conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 92 Impact TRANS-28B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not increase vehicle queues, under Project Buildout conditions, beyond available storage at the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing and would not exacerbate risk of collisions, resulting in no impact to the at-grade rail crossing. (Less-than- Significant) The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in a net decrease in traffic volumes crossing the Caltrain corridor along Scott Street, as some vehicle traffic crossing the Caltrain corridor at Scott Street would shift to Southline Avenue (documented in Sections 4.3.3 and 7.3.2). As a result, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing under Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. 7.5.2.4 Traffic Signal Warrant Impact TRANS-29A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Phase 1 conditions, and as such the Phase 1 Project results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-29B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not meet any traffic signal warrants within the Specific Plan area, under Project Buildout conditions, and as such the Project Buildout results in a less than significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) None of the Project’s five unsignalized driveways meet peak hour signal warrants under Phase 1 or Project Buildout conditions with the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative as described in Sections 4.3.2 and 7.4.1. The Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would provide appropriate pedestrian crossing treatments at these unsignalized crossings. As a result, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under both Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less-than-significant impact on traffic signal warrants, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-30A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) Impact TRANS-30B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would meet Peak Hour Signal Warrant at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue Intersection, under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 93 As documented in Sections 4.4.1 and 7.4.1, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would result in a net increase of about 11 PM vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions and 301 PM peak hour trips under Project Buildout conditions at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue. This intersection meets CA-MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour under Existing, 2024 No Project, and 2040 No Project conditions. The addition of Phase 1 and Project Buildout traffic would substantially contribute to the need for a signal at this intersection. As such, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under both the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a significant impact at this location. Mitigation Measures: The Project Sponsor should provide a fair share contribution towards implementation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue to alleviate potential conflicts associated with Project Buildout-related traffic. However, the traffic signal is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this mitigation occurs will be implemented. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce the Project Buildout impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would be remain significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable) 7.5.2.5 Emergency Vehicle Access Impact TRANS-30A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Phase 1 conditions. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-30B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not produce a detrimental impact to emergency vehicle access in the study area, under Project Buildout conditions. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.5 and 7.4.5, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not include design elements that would hinder emergency access, and all roadways and facilities will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under the Phase 1 and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None required 7.5.3 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Impact TRANS-31A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Phase 1 conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than-Significant) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 94 Impact TRANS-31B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, under Project Buildout conditions, and results in a less than significant impact based on compliance with such plans and policies. (Less-than- Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.4 and 7.4.4, Reduced Underground Parking Alternative exhibits consistency with plans, policies, and programs adopted by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, C/CAG, BART, and MTC. The Project would provide employment near regional transit, would enhance bicycle and pedestrian facilities to support transit access, would connect local street networks, and would include a TDM program that meets City requirements. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs and would have a less than significant impact. Impact TRANS-32A: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Phase 1 conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-32B: Development of the proposed Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase travel times for some bus routes, under Project Buildout conditions, but would not decrease the overall performance of transit service, and as such results in a less than significant impact on transit. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.4 and 7.4.4, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would increase average transit travel times on SamTrans ECR bus route (and portions of SamTrans routes 140 and 141) by one to three minutes, but is unlikely to affect the route’s performance overall or require additional buses to maintain comparable headways. No other routes operating in the Project vicinity would have increased average transit times due to the Project. The Project would also add transit ridership to BART, SamTrans, and Caltrain, but would not materially contribute to overcrowding. In addition, the Project delivers pedestrian infrastructure designed to enhance access to the SamTrans transit center and BART station. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on transit performance and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact TRANS-33A: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and pedestrian facilities near the Project under Phase 1 conditions, resulting in a less- than-significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) Impact TRANS-33B: Development of the proposed Project Buildout Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not decrease the performance and safety of bicycle and Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 95 pedestrian facilities near the Project under Project Buildout conditions, resulting in a significant impact. (Less-than-Significant) As documented in Sections 4.4.4 and 7.4.4, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative would not degrade the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The Project would extend the Centennial Way Trail, enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART Station, and provide new bike lane and sidewalk facilities. Therefore, the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative under Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout conditions would have a less than significant impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure: None required. Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 96 Appendix: VMT Totals for Greenhouse Gas Analysis The following table summarizes VMT totals for use in greenhouse gas analysis. The C/CAG Model estimates VMT and auto mode share based on regional travel behavior and proximity to transit. However, the model outputs do not fully reflect the implementation of the Project’s TDM program as required by city ordinance (most notably subsidized transit passes), and does not take into account active transportation facilities like the Centennial Way Trail as well as access improvements between the project and regional transit stations. It is anticipated that the project’s TDM program would result in a 23 percent reduction in VMT over the C/CAG Model estimates based on these factors. Appendix Table: VMT Totals for GHG Analysis Scenario TAZ Total VMT Total Project VMT (Drive Alone Mode Share) Total Project VMT with TDM Program Existing 258,500 - - Existing Plus Phase I 362,200 103,800 (71%) 79,900 (55%) 2024 260,000 - - 2024 Plus Phase I 363,800 103,800 (71%) 79,900 (55%) 2040 No Project 264,100 - - 2040 Plus Project Buildout 663,500 399,400 (71%) 307,500 (55%) Southline Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis April 2022 97 Appendix: Traffic Operations Memo The following memorandum analyzes traffic operations for the Phase 1 Project, Project Buildout, and Partial Circulation Alternative. The Phase 1 Project analysis also covers the Reduced Underground Parking Alternative as discussed in Section 7. Memorandum Date: January 4, 2022 To: Adena Friedman, City of South San Francisco From: Fehr & Peers Subject: Southline Traffic Operations Analysis SF20-1089 Executive Summary The following memorandum presents a traffic operations analysis of the Southline Specific Plan and associated transportation infrastructure changes (“Project”). The Project would redevelop an approximately 26.5-acre industrial site in the City of South San Francisco’s Lindenville District, adjacent to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail station. The Project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct a transit-oriented office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet. New development would include office/R&D and amenity space serving approximately 11,000 employees; approximately 5,700 parking spaces; a new east-west street connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue (referred to as “Southline Avenue”1); off-site transportation, circulation, and infrastructure improvements at several locations outside the Specific Plan area; supportive utilities and related infrastructure; and open space. In addition to creating the new Southline Avenue, the Project would modify off-site transportation infrastructure including constructing a new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station; providing a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station with new bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks. Most of this off-site transportation infrastructure is 1 The South San Francisco General Plan identifies a proposed South Linden extension in a northeast/southwest direction across the Project site, connecting to South Maple Ave. (See General Plan, Figure 2-1.) Southline Avenue is provisionally named for the purpose of the Specific Plan and CEQA review. January 4, 2022 Page 2 of 30 2 located within the City of South San Francisco; however, certain improvements, including portions of the new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, are located in the City of San Bruno. The Project would be developed in phases over time with Phase 1 anticipated to be constructed by 2024, and full buildout in 2030. Phase 1 would include construction of the new Southline Avenue east–west connection road and the following development, generally located south of the new road: two new office buildings, with a total building area of up to 612,715 square feet; the four-story, 88,200-square foot amenities building; associated parking; and landscaping and open space amenities. Phase 1 also includes most of the proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure, roadway, and pedestrian improvements within the off-site improvement areas, including development of Southline Avenue and the intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue. This memorandum summarizes Project traffic patterns and anticipated changes in intersection Level of Service (LOS). Under California Senate Bill 743, passed in 2013, a development project’s contributions to LOS no longer constitute a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since LOS has been eliminated from consideration under CEQA, this analysis is intended to be informational only, providing the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno with an overview of how the local roadway network surrounding the Project functions from an operations standpoint. However, for the purposes of evaluating environmental impacts under CEQA, the new regulations have removed traffic congestion from the range of required subjects analyzed within CEQA documents. This memorandum summarizes the Project’s projected travel patterns and effects on LOS under 6 different scenarios as further described in the Methodology section below. These scenarios include evaluation of both Phase 1 Project under 2024 conditions and Project Buildout under the 2040 condition, both as compared to a no project and existing condition. A Partial Circulation Scenario evaluates the Project’s effects without the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection connecting Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue. Key Findings Include: • Project-related traffic would be distributed across several streets connecting to 10 freeway ramps and several arterials; consequently, traffic volumes and associated congestion effects are not concentrated along any particular corridor. This information is shown in Figures 9 and 10 as well as Table 7. • Under existing conditions, three intersections (all within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions under existing conditions, two of which do not meet LOS standards. January 4, 2022 Page 3 of 30 3 • Under 2024 no project conditions, five intersections experience LOS E or F conditions (one in South San Francisco, four in San Bruno), and three of these intersections do not meet LOS standards. Under 2024 plus Phase 1 conditions, the same four intersections experience LOS E or F conditions and the same three intersections do not meet LOS standards, while one intersection improves due to shifts in traffic patterns. This information is shown in Table 7. • Under 2040 No Project conditions, nine intersections (five within South San Francisco and four within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, three of which do not meet LOS standards. Under 2040 Project Buildout conditions, 12 intersections (six within South San Francisco and six without San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, and five intersections do not meet LOS standards. This information is shown in Figures 11 and 12 as well as Table 7. • Without the proposed Southline Avenue connection of South Linden Avenue to Sneath Lane, as studied here under the Partial Circulation Scenario, more trips would occur in areas south of the Project (particularly along Herman Avenue and San Mateo Avenue) and in areas to the north of the Project (along Victory Avenue and Spruce Avenue). These streets lack capacity to accommodate large increases in Project-related traffic. This information is shown in Figures 9 through 12 and Table 7, and further described on pages 15 and 24. January 4, 2022 Page 4 of 30 4 City LOS Policies This memorandum analyzes the effects of Project vehicle traffic at signalized and unsignalized intersections using level of service (LOS). LOS is a quantitative description of an intersection’s performance based on the average delay experienced by drivers. Intersection levels of service range from LOS A, which indicates free flow conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded vehicle flow conditions with extremely long delays. California Senate Bill 743 stipulates that vehicle LOS and similar measures related to auto delay shall not be used as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, local agencies may continue to use vehicle congestion metrics to inform non-CEQA transportation planning and evaluation. The City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno have each adopted LOS policies. These policies differ by jurisdiction as described below: • The South San Francisco General Plan exempts development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards (Policy 4.2-G-17). The City has concluded that Policy 4.2-G-17 applies to the entirety of the Project given most of the site is within ¼ mile of the San Bruno BART Station. • The San Bruno General Plan strives to maintain acceptable levels of service for vehicular movement along the city’s street network, and acknowledges that acceptable level of service could vary based on characteristics of the area under consideration (Policy T-B). It establishes a LOS D standard at intersections highlighted in yellow in (including the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane intersection, which has lane configurations affected by the Project). Figure 1 – City of San Bruno LOS Standards January 4, 2022 Page 5 of 30 5 Methodology The following section describes the methodology for this analysis. The analysis scenarios, travel demand model methodology, and trip generation, distribution, and assignment are consistent with the approach presented in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Analysis Scenarios The impacts of the proposed Project to the surrounding transportation system were evaluated for the five scenarios listed below: • Scenario 1: Existing Conditions • Scenario 2: 2024 Baseline (No Project) • Scenario 3: 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions • Scenario 4: Cumulative 2040 Conditions • Scenario 5: Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions A description of the methods used to estimate the amount of traffic and VMT generated by the proposed Project is provided below. 1. Existing Conditions (Pre-COVID-19) Existing conditions represent the baseline condition upon which Project impacts are measured. The existing condition reflects transportation conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data was not collected for this analysis. Instead, to establish a representative existing condition, this analysis utilized local traffic data collected in 2017 and 2018 and transit service levels prior to the COVID- 19 pandemic (including Caltrain service levels of five trains per hour, per direction). This approach enables analysis of an observed condition and no major developments have since been completed in the immediate Project area that might substantially affect traffic patterns; however, there is inherently some uncertainty in the data’s representation of existing conditions due to its age and the unusual circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. 2024 Baseline The 2024 Baseline condition represents a near-term condition after the COVID-19 pandemic is presumed to have ended, in which travel patterns have returned to normal. The 2024 Baseline condition includes prorated local and regional growth consistent with the 2040 forecasts, reflecting the 2017/2018 conditions plus the addition of roughly one quarter of total growth between the 2017/2018 condition and 2040 forecasts. There remains substantial uncertainties around the January 4, 2022 Page 6 of 30 6 COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on travel behavior and the duration of these effects; this approach assumes travel behavior returns to typical conditions and the effects of the pandemic are short term in nature. The 2024 Baseline also includes the completion of the Caltrain Electrification Project, a Project currently under construction that will increase Caltrain service levels to six trains per hour, per direction. 3. 2024 Baseline Plus Project Phase 1 Conditions The 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 conditions represent the 2024 condition with the addition of Phase 1 of the Project based on the anticipated Phase 1 construction schedule. Phase 1 of the Project includes several major transportation network improvements, including the construction of Southline Avenue; constructing a new intersection connecting Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; providing a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and extension of various bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station and enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station with new bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks. As such, under 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 conditions, traffic volumes reflect the existing traffic volumes, some redistribution of traffic to the new Southline Avenue, and traffic associated with the land uses in Phase 1 of the Project. 4. Cumulative 2040 Conditions Cumulative 2040 conditions include transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with planned transportation Projects. Cumulative conditions are based on forecasted land use and transportation conditions included in Plan Bay Area 2040, as represented in the C/CAG Model. Forecasts for cumulative conditions include several adjustments to reflect reasonably foreseeable Projects affecting the study area, including completion of all approved employment Projects within the City of South San Francisco as of May 2020, and completion of the Bayhill Specific Plan in the City of San Bruno (a plan that may be considered reasonably foreseeable even though it is not yet approved). Along the Caltrain railroad corridor, cumulative conditions include the operation of 12 trains per hour, per direction during peak periods; this service level reflects completion of the California High Speed Rail Project to operate four high speed trains per hour, per direction (as described in Plan Bay Area) as well as the Caltrain Business Plan’s adopted service vision of operating eight trains per hour, per direction during peak periods. Cumulative conditions do not assume completion of any roadway changes (with the exception of the US-101 Managed Lanes project south of I-380). The South Linden and Scott Street grade separations are also not included since these Projects are not yet fully funded or included in the regional transportation plan. As of September 2020, both South San Francisco and San Bruno have provided direction to proceed with studying a hybrid approach for the South Linden Avenue grade crossing that involves partially raising the railway and lowering the roadway, along with closing Scott Street to vehicles and maintaining a crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists. January 4, 2022 Page 7 of 30 7 5. Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions Cumulative plus Project conditions represent the cumulative condition with the addition of the complete Project buildout to determine the extent to which the proposed Project would contribute to long-term cumulative transportation impacts. 6. Partial Circulation Scenario (Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions) The Partial Circulation Scenario matches Scenario 5 (Cumulative 2040 Plus Project Buildout Conditions) with the omission of a new reconfiguration of the intersection connecting Southline Avenue to Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue. In this scenario, Southline Avenue would terminate at Maple Avenue at its western portion. Travel Demand Model Methodology The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Travel Demand Model (C/CAG Model) was used as a basis for analyzing travel behavior, including trip distribution and vehicle miles traveled. The C/CAG Model is a trip-based regional travel demand model that considers regional land use patterns, approximated highway congestion, and connecting transit service within the nine-county Bay Area region. As part of the ongoing City of South San Francisco General Plan Update study, the C/CAG model was reviewed, and updated through a series of diagnostic tests to assess the model’s performance and reasonableness, and a series of refinements were made to the model inputs for land use, roadway network and transit service within South San Francisco. These updates improve the C/CAG model’s effectiveness in reasonably estimating current travel patterns and changes in travel patterns in response to Project land use and transportation network changes. To further enhance the reasonableness of trip assignment from the C/CAG Model, the City of South San Francisco’s sub-area model was applied using Project trip generation and trip distribution from the C/CAG Model. The sub-area model, developed for the City of South San Francisco General Plan Update, reflects origin-destination patterns consistent with the C/CAG Model and incorporates refinements to the level of detail in the local street network. The sub-area model, developed in the Visum software platform, provides a more detailed representation of traffic circulation and operational performance of the roadway network in the vicinity of the Project and within the San Francisco and San Bruno areas. The roadway network in the sub-area model was refined to include most streets and major driveways in South San Francisco. The traffic assignment process in the sub- area model incorporates details such as signal timings, intersection lane geometries, and turning movement delays, allowing for a more realistic representation of existing traffic patterns and those associated with the Project land use and proposed street extension. Figure 2 illustrates the increased local network detail in the South San Francisco model compared to the C/CAG model. Figure 3 highlights the proposed street extension in the South San Francisco General Plan. January 4, 2022 Page 8 of 30 8 Figure 2. Comparison of Model Network Detail C/CAG Model South San Francisco Model Figure 3. South San Francisco General Plan – Proposed Streets Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed Project was estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step, trip generation, estimates the amount of traffic that would be generated once the proposed Project was built and fully occupied. The second step, trip distribution, estimates the direction of travel to and from the Project. The third step, trip assignment, assigns the proposed Project trips to specific street segments and intersection turning movements. The results are described below. Trip Generation Project person trip and vehicle trip forecasts were developed to capture the multimodal nature of Project travel as a transit-oriented development. Person trip generation represents trips by one person in any mode of transportation, whereas vehicle trip generation represents trips by one January 4, 2022 Page 9 of 30 9 vehicle. Vehicle trip estimates include trips associated with single occupancy vehicles, taxis, ride- hailing companies (like Uber and Lyft), carpools, and shuttles. The Project includes two land use alternatives – an office use and a life science use. For purposes of this analysis, the office use was analyzed to reflect a land use condition with a employee density – typically offices have one employee per 250 square feet, compared to one employee per 450 square feet for life science uses. Therefore, the Office Alternative would have a larger effect on the surrounding environment when compared to the Life Sciences Alternative. As such, this section analyzes the Office Alternative when considering project impacts under the buildout scenario. Trip generation estimates were prepared for the Phase 1 Project (701,000 square feet), inclusive of the approximately 16,400 square foot publicly-accessible ground floor uses in the amenities buildings, in addition to the Project Buildout (up to 2,800,000 square feet). The Project is subject to the City’s Transportation Demand Management ordinance. The Project will be required to comply with a maximum drive alone mode share of 55 percent. Under the Transportation Demand Management ordinance, the Project must comply with standard monitoring practices to enforce these mode share requirements. A Preliminary TDM Plan has been prepared for the Project, which is applicable to the entire Project site. Office Trip Generation Office trip generation was calculated using local data from comparable sites, as further described below, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition recommendation for using local data for similar atypical developments like the proposed Project, which is very large in scale, adjacent to high frequency transit service, has a reduced parking supply, and is subject to stringent transportation demand management requirements. Based on the ITE recommendation, this analysis estimates person trip and vehicle trip rates based on observed counts and mode share surveys for comparable high intensity technology office uses in Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station, as analyzed in the Redwood City Moves Transportation Plan. Based on a review of comparable trip generation and mode share data for other transit-oriented office sites located in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Mateo, the Downtown Redwood City location was selected based on land use, transit, and TDM characteristics that most closely resemble the Project. These person trip and vehicle trip rates from the Downtown Redwood City data were adjusted to reflect the Project’s mode share requirements consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s TDM ordinance – a maximum peak period drive alone rate of 55 percent including single-occupancy vehicles and single-passenger trips via ride-hailing companies or taxis, as compared to an observed peak period drive-alone rate of 50 percent in the downtown Redwood City surveys. Person trip generation for non-auto modes was based on transit, carpool, and active transportation data from South San Francisco TDM surveys and the proximity of the Project to transit services and active transportation facilities. An estimated 23 percent of peak hour trips would occur via BART, January 4, 2022 Page 10 of 30 10 10 percent via Caltrain, eight percent via Carpool, two percent via SamTrans buses, and two percent via bicycling. Trips via BART and SamTrans would require walking from the Project to the San Bruno BART Station or SamTrans bus transit center, while trips via Caltrain would connect via first/last mile shuttles or via biking. Amenity Uses Trip generation for the Project’s publicly accessible restaurant/retail uses were estimated using the High Turnover Restaurant classification from the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Since the publicly accessible amenities are generally expected to draw pedestrian trips from elsewhere within the Project site and adjacent areas, the High Turnover Restaurant classification provides a conservative assessment of vehicle trips that is typically more reflective of a more automobile- oriented use. Amenity uses accessible only to tenants of the Project such as an employee cafeteria, fitness center, basketball court, auditorium would not generate external vehicle trips, but would generate employee-related person trips for individuals employed at these services. Trip generation for these internal private amenities was estimated at about one quarter of office rates based on anticipated employee densities and mix of staffed and unstaffed uses . Trip generation for the public and private amenity uses were included in both the Phase 1 Project and Project Buildout. Trip Internalization Since the Project includes complementary mixed uses, some trips would be “internalized” within the Project Site (trips beginning and ending within the Project by walking). An internalization rate of three percent (AM peak hour) and two percent (PM peak hour) was applied to all vehicle trips during the respective peak hours based on the MXD+ Model, a weighted average of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model (MXD) and the NHCRP 684 methodology. Credit for Existing Trip Generation The Project’s net change in vehicle trips was calculated to reflect the estimated amount of vehicle trips occurring at the Project site under existing conditions. Due to the atypical travel patterns associated with the COVID-19 public health crisis and related shelter-in-place order, driveway counts of existing Project site uses were not conducted for purposes of this analysis. Instead, trip generation estimates for existing uses were estimated based on land use characteristics and the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Existing land uses include approximately 344,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses, about 85 percent of which is occupied. Both Phase 1 and the Project Buildout would include the Southline Avenue extension and associated infrastructure; therefore, both Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip generation include the full trip credit associated with existing land uses. In total, existing uses generate an estimated 1,504 daily vehicle trips, including 171 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 150 PM peak hour vehicle trips. January 4, 2022 Page 11 of 30 11 Trip Generation Results Phase 1 of the Project would generate approximately 7,930 daily person trips and 3,954 daily vehicle trips. These totals include 1,043 AM peak hour person trips, 485 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips, 950 PM peak hour person trips, and 455 net new PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 1 and Table 2 show person trip and vehicle trip generation estimates for Phase 1, respectively. The Project Buildout would generate approximately 28,461 daily person trips and 16,876 vehicle trips. These totals include 3,918 AM peak hour person trips, 2,150 net new AM peak hour vehicle trips, 3,528 PM peak hour person trips, and 1,952 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 3 and Table 4 show person trip and vehicle trip generation estimates for the Project Buildout respectively. Table 1. Person Trip Generation | Phase 1 Mode Mode Share AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Drive Alone 55% 499 447 3,837 Carpool 8% 73 65 550 BART 23% 209 187 1,281 Caltrain1 10% 91 81 557 SamTrans 2% 18 16 111 Walk/Bike2 2% 18 16 111 Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 908 812 6,448 Person Trips, Public Amenity Visitors - 135 138 1,482 Total Person Trips - 1,043 950 7,930 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and person trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. 2. Mode share estimates based on City of South San Francisco TDM Surveys and analysis based on local context. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. January 4, 2022 Page 12 of 30 12 Table 2. Vehicle Trip Generation | Phase 1 Land Use Size (KSF) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Office1 613 0.81 464 35 499 0.73 58 387 445 6.16 3,774 Private Amenities2 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public Amenities3 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization Adjustment (3% AM / 2% PM) -15 -3 -18 -3 -8 -11 -280 Project Trips 551 105 656 154 451 605 5,458 Existing Office4 11 ITE Equation -10 -2 -12 ITE Equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing Light Industrial5 278 ITE Equation -140 -19 -159 ITE Equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 401 84 485 134 321 455 3,954 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and vehicle trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table. 2. Includes external trips associated with employee commutes and deliveries only, assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip generation rate based upon expected uses and employee densities. 3. Source: ITE 932 High Turnover Restaurant, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Values rounded in table. 4. Source: ITE 710, General Office Building, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with the Phase 1 Project. 5. Source: ITE 110, General Light Industrial, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with the Phase 1 Project. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. January 4, 2022 Page 13 of 30 13 Table 3. Person Trip Generation | Project Buildout Mode Mode Share AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Drive Alone 55% 2,105 1,879 15,984 Carpool 8% 306 273 2,317 BART 23% 880 786 5,394 Caltrain1 10% 383 342 2,345 SamTrans 2% 77 68 469 Walk/Bike2 2% 77 68 469 Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 3,828 3,416 26,978 Person Trips, Public Amenity Visitors - 90 112 1,483 Total Person Trips - 3,918 3,528 28,461 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and person trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. 2. Mode share estimates based on City of South San Francisco TDM Surveys and assignment to transit providers based on local context and expected travel patterns. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. January 4, 2022 Page 14 of 30 14 Table 4. Vehicle Trip Generation | Project Buildout Land Use Size (KSF) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Office1 2,712 0.81 2,053 155 2,208 0.73 256 1,713 1,969 6.16 16,696 Private Amenities2 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public Amenities3 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization Adjustment (3% AM / 2% PM) -56 -6 -62 -6 -32 -38 -280 Project Trips 2,099 222 2,321 349 1,753 2,102 18,380 Existing Office4 11 ITE Equation -10 -2 -12 ITE Equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing Light Industrial5 278 ITE Equation -140 -19 -159 ITE Equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 1,949 201 2,150 329 1,623 1,952 16,876 Notes: 1. Based on travel demand data from high intensity tech office mode share and vehicle trip generation surveys from Downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain Station as well as requirements from City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table. 2. Includes external trips associated with employee commutes and deliveries only, assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip generation rate based upon expected uses and employee densities. 3. Source: ITE 932 High Turnover Restaurant, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Values rounded in table. 4. Source: ITE 710, General Office Building, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. 5. Source: ITE 110, General Light Industrial, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 10th ed. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces only as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2020. Project Vehicle Trip Distribution, and Project Vehicle Trip Assignment Figure 4 displays vehicle trip distribution by county based on the C/CAG Model. Approximately 65 percent of vehicle trips would travel between the Project and other locations in San Mateo County. About 21 percent of trips would travel between the Project and San Francisco County. The remainder of trips would be split between Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and elsewhere in the East Bay and North Bay. This summary does not include trip distribution associated with non- auto trips. January 4, 2022 Page 15 of 30 15 Figure 4 Vehicle Trip Distribution – Summary by County Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate Phase 1 and Project Buildout trip distribution and assignment based on the City’s sub-area model, depicting street segments with greater than 25 Project- generated trips. Vehicle trip distribution from the Project is shown in green, while volumes assigned to individual streets are illustrated proportionally in blue. The Project’s location and access to multiple freeway ramps would result in drivers using several different routes to access US-101, I- 380, and I-280. Because 2040 freeway conditions are projected to be highly congested, some Project trips may travel somewhat longer distances via parallel corridors such as El Camino Real or Junipero Serra Boulevard. Approximately 56 percent of Project-generated trips would travel via San Bruno, and 44 percent via South San Francisco. Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the total difference in volumes associated with the Project Buildout (the Project Buildout trip assignment plus the change in travel patterns associated with the new street connection). By adding the Southline Avenue connection between Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue, the Project would shift vehicle trips from other routes, resulting in a net decrease in traffic volumes on parallel routes like Spruce Avenue and Scott Street. 2024 conditions generally mirror those shown in 2040 with lower traffic volumes associated with Phase 1. Figure 9 and 10 illustrate the difference in AM and PM peak hour volumes for the Partial Circulation Scenario as compared to the Project Buildout. Under the Partial Circulation Scenario, more Project traffic uses Spruce Avenue, Herman Street, and San Mateo Avenue to access the Project via a more circuitous paths, while Huntington Avenue, Sneath Lane, and El Camino Real experience comparatively lower volumes given the lack of direct connection to the Project. San Mateo County, 65% San Francisco County, 21% Alameda County, 4% Santa Clara County , 4% Other, 5% © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors 169514999 3 0177 16929 22822722822722746 17715129 2917717 7 95177 4650505 0 9 8 17713213246 9 898 811 8 0 191 267 119 119 5 7 5 8 2 2 6 5 3 3 07 191 188 183 182 41 34 61 307 1 3 6 307 2 6 8 26 4 277 160 155 2 6 8 267 136 5 2132131 1 8 0 161163 182 182 2 2 5 1 8 0 120 160 151 150 110 16560 42474741 15 629 7 5 11929 47 8246 888686868285124 8411989959 8 10494 104 33 156 1564027 7 656252856 806 0 4723317733 1792929 5050 152323223 942 2 0 2 2 2 1 7 81 2 31 3 6 136 259 5 8 6 0254795323135 2115162224150152153472232113 272501438242 112 79 26 79 4217042249111 49 48 3 2 3 4 95 94 4 0 3 6 56 4747 14026 2951 50 93 9 2 7 0 7 0 335736864 9 25 6 5 8 5 8 8 4 3 2 0257 2 5 8 7 1 3 48847 2820743 5688 665451985 5 1932 0 5 318 4 37 5 0 56 1 9 0 1 9 1 59 3 1 5 1 7 518318227 5 3 89100254765 10011345 5 7 7 24 64 5 2758 57 398688393082 55 374 9363571868527 31 27 10154 5 5 6718047 11357 58 26 30 25 426 3 88 704 1 26 2828 57 521123029 35 31 28277748 5439 39 29 2 9 48 45385657Volume flow bundle PrT [veh] (AP)0 178 356 713 Southline 2040 Buildout Project Trip Distribution - AM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsProject Trip Distribution & Assignment - AM Peak HourFigure 5 30%14% 18% 38% XX% Trip Distribution 200 400 800 Project Site © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors155142 9799160 1201 25 115 16 2 115115 2712047 47 120104115 105125 13 2 13613 6 35 35 119 12085 85 1551361 3 6 304 235 303 59 59 4 1 44 18 0 83 304 235 226 222 221 65 65 46 275 11 4 304 3 0 3 27 303 3 04 82 78 3 03 303 115 80141141219220221 221 1 76 7 0 69 69 69 40 40 1412828 7474 333 3426868424242 367473 33 42 42426628 175 172 170 33333 3 76 5 4277727 59 8 1 81252262062147777 5252 13222699 1 2 8299 0 9 3 1 03 19 4 5 4 54 4496257313239 422922553 1729810840123128131135133391221711142 8 119619767105116 64 47 46 15130301516319564 115 232 233 63 36 40 26 25 31 31 53911053 918 7 72 18 2 75 7 4 3 6 2 8 018 5 18 7 61 6 51551233285072 44 33 37 305737321053678 8 1162 32022 924 4533 5 7 2 54 22722 9 41 2 65 13 6 85 219 1 34 1081074031 10710738 54 52 3 9 38 3 31071083834 53 42 3872 7 23736100585810742 36 571357 510740 40 31 3 0100996610610627 7250 71 693 239 Volume flow bundle PrT [veh] (AP)0 154 308 616 Southline 2040 Buildout Project Trip Distribution - PM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsProject Trip Distribution & Assignment - PM Peak Hour Figure 6 26%16% 19% 39% XX%Trip Distribution Project Site 150 300 650 © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors 170168802 2 8 202 -53-27-70-8 0322 3 1 21236 -51-6932 -67 101 33 -42 190155159221227263 8-523350 2 5 7 -26-51-54 15136 343740189214 172 1 5 4 6758327 39 3 1 12186121 1 2 1 -36 4 9 56 56 -2727 3 2 7 45-9166-2812412448 6631-3 9 39 4 9-27-2727 -39-3 6 35 -64 64 3 3 83 59 1 3 5 1 1 6 110 1 1 3 9 3 94 116135 8 2 2 6 8 -1 5 7 8 8 64 82 52 53 27 52 28 47 34 6364 -1 02 4 5 64 6 2 52 45 2 851 60 165 160 61 59 45-1 02 -1 5 8 87 44 120 - 62 1 6 1 4748 55 52 28 2 8 437 1133 5 35 119 123 123 110 596037 105-271 5 432-282 9 4 130 4 127 4 028426969 42 5626127 41595383-26265 3 535328 55 37669 7 939338 5151512669 39 152 31 174-2728 1 2 9 33 32 2931404263669241 392629 92521 2 4 -7 1 12226-10177-100-15939 -89-1922927 41 30 53 50 36181607292-157115 1 8 5 4 1 -1 6 41 0 611 0 -1 6 0 4 6 3 4 3 86 6 -1 0 6 -11457 3162236-3 6 -344011049 -122 119607682-35-26-3410541186181353836182401061187751 63 2536 35 13839643628828 32 31 27 28 32 33 34436538312636 40 39 64 172 64 32 48 73 3 4 38 -38 62 17835 49 33 41 41 37 37 2709731075 6 1 1 31 2 7 2 0 0 3 3 3 3 8 9 -8 3 -43 -4 3 -42 -40-4 3 -2 9 2 8 4-1 4 0 -158 20020 0-1 5 7460461955028 361 0 5-5 0 2919638604730 34323 2 2938-3921 1 119-53 3938 -2 6 3737314926 27 2 9 449 2 31 2 72634334536 44 -5 7 3 62 7 4 83 0 3 2 8 2 70 48 49140107-8 9 -50485232363 5 485326266671 30 -50-474262 48 6 4 6 33140 39 27 28 627454 4 3-84273 0 51 50 31 302929 32 32 40-533355 6250 42-4734 35 34 522 9 433241 35 35 34 100 -43-4850 31 3427504982 292866 2 9 34 43 403839Version comparison - Southline 2040 No Project\VOL_1HR_AM03466921383<= 0.00> 0 Southline 2040 Buildout Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots2040 Project Buildout Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour Figure 7 Decrease Increase 350 700 1400 Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume Project Site © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors3012567 879946130 941 6 1 7 9 -32-51 1 5 8 7912 3 547 08578 44 90 39401171042 8 -41-33-3 7 120 10554 5462 27161 22 63 5 94576 2 -3 2 -32 43 5886 8610431 2619143 39 33 6 4 949 4 1 101 2 5 136 136 72 1 1 7 89 8 9 89 8 0 1 177 0 3 1 2 9 9 11 3 136 99 94 90 62 44 135 4 9 113 1 3 8 30 36 9 3 8 1 101 98 1 3 7 136 49101100 8 6 1 4 2 1 1 0 1 2 5 114115 94 89 7 73 0 8 1 2 5 1 1 0 91 90 30107 107 30 328 8 9228 51-8939 964096 54-7727342 656 33 -34494 9 323 4 5 0 393 839 38 2829 46393994 342638313 4 3 4 2 7 3 9 3 9 3 9 69 37105 1 1 2 1 2 8 14714331 88 47 118 120 55-7653423333 33401 1 5 29337072102-311021 0 6 -28 -4 4 9436 374249-98-153-203-146-18926 293231 1608536752888-114 7 7-1 1 9 -1 1 5 8 2 4 325 2 4-1 3 4 4 3 37-140 123 179-3 9 -35 292943-5356-140 37 15427 344158-34-306315482851581701618643638427153473 335 7 2 2952413884024541-50 45334071230283-44 96 91 5 9 5568 44 38 164693331 47 61 -41 33 33 3 84283527 3 7 1 2 8 -1 63 3 1 3 1 2 845 30 3 7 -28-472 8 -3 32 2 1107-186-1 7 71 1 7135119637 27 5 01656803043738 -59-293426274130-74101 2 6 23043 0 -2743362 846 41 2 5 6 26 2 49 -6 51 7 3 34 23 89 6 2627 14794-5 3-4632 -413642283434374046 -53 -44-9441 2834 30 55 31 5228 3 75050-403 4 34 292929 30 382 8 34 31 -82-9448 49 39303130 -38 -57-70-8834 34 3231 34 26 35 32 29277038 33 36 3452 39-27 Version comparison - Southline 2040 No Project\VOL_1HR_PM03737461492<= 0.00> 0 Southline 2040 Buildout Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\Plots2040 Project Buildout Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour Figure 8 Decrease Increase 350 700 1400 Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume Project SiteProject Site © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors -6 1150728 51 28 2 8-26-36 39 128-4 6 -43 3013141-6 2 75152152 -36 -29-107-1 1 0 -41 -147 3 0 -36 788 6 -26 -1 4 7 4238 30-27-3 6 -3 6 6565-26 -49 -63 -53 -1 9 7 30 -61 -6 1 -4 5 -2 3 2 -4 0 -3 8 -53 -34-53 -77 -53 -4 6 -50 30 -7 7 -3 9 -3 6 -1 9 7 -2 3 0 -1 9 7 1771415757 601232 926347242804426 2 9 3 7 2 6 2 72626 -72-41 40 5757 5576763151-93 -27 3911148 -2 8 4 0 26 38 3790264 4 -3 4 -2739-42277414836118266 66 63 63 62 34521332 66 -613677176-46 1 7 0-5 2 - 50 1 7 2 -4 34 2-2 6 1 2 6 1 26 221 -145 4 5 9 3 4 3 9177134 53-57-65-7773363987-65-346353-44-92-73-653453-57-2 14 -11910888-1393342 63 74-15274119-10749 38 39 -29 65 -32 31 4 3 103 10028 38 38 -78-594-662303 -2 1 5-6 9 156 15726-8 61 4 4 3 1 0-210 -2 0 33 1 5-292-285-3050 4 8 31-4 437-139-9120531-54-78-90-34-30-7 0 42 -78-7841 -1 0 14 9-6 8 -6 9-30-2710945 29 58 49 30 10913930307294-27353649816436 922 3 813842 42 34 29 362-51 -35 29 -28 -26-3228 186 171Version comparison - Southline 2040 Buildout\VOL_1HR_AM0166331662<= 0.00> 0 Southline 2040 Buildout - No Intersection Volume Difference to 2040 Full Buildout - AM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthline - 2040 Full Buildout / Partial Circulation Scenario Volume Difference - AM Peak Hour Figure 9 Decrease Increase 150 350 650 Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume Project Site © OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors© OpenStreetMap contributors2627 8354-5 1 463 5 20 94 4264 64353642-28 89-3567-4446221382571 7 1 3245-51 -521321251058 0 80 30313339352 8 -42-42-56 -61 35105-42-19991 133-33 -2 5 4 -8 0 5 4 -57 -33 -30 -30 -29 -31 -8 5 37 -57 3 7 5 7 -37-37-42 -4 4 -31-31 -31 -28 -3 0-2 53 118200-571141512 86269743333 27 2637 4 4 313 12828 28-48 13 2 132-55-36-417 4 7 4 7 5 7 4 7 5 7 5 8 0 6 7 26676738-3 3 -33-33 94 43 23514911438 38 -5028 475131-50-46 -673110913720642441 41 4343 34 30 19940226 41 31 13384-11783-86145 -9 5 -8 61 4 4 1 4 6 -8 4 32-5 5 1 5 5 -6 2 -56160 -31-48-267 187 1 3 4 5 4 1 3 0 5 0 -3183160 -57 -5439-51-46464212546-139107-95-107955975-127-139-5539-305 9389-208-222742927-29 74 -242545428 3529-1989864 57 105 105 45 167 -47 -47 40 -89 -15329-38 35 108 106 -815-163-1123 1 7 -3 2-37-62 109 -441273 6 2 8 411193 8 79-1 89 -75338 3 2 7-8 5-109-88-46380-2648 -139-515-1 7383-70-32 -26-60233-57-67426-126-173323939-3 9 -1 21-126-2 1 1-97-3 0 -3 0 -875 8 1 7 8 553560-28101 64 32 35625718531384531 15270104 -67 1 1 0 586229 4419247121 83627210232104 -52 233Version comparison - Southline 2040 Buildout\VOL_1HR_PM0204408815<= 0.00> 0 Southline 2040 Buildout - No Intersection Volume Difference to 2040 Full Buildout - PM Peak Hour\\fpsf03\Data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Analysis\Model\PlotsSouthline - 2040 Full Buildout / Partial Circulation Scenario Volume Difference - PM Peak Hour Figure 10 Decrease Increase 200 400 800 Volume - veh/hrChange in Volume Project Site January 4, 2022 Page 22 of 30 22 Level of Service Methodology LOS for the study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition and HCM 2000 methodologies. While HCM methodology and Synchro traffic analysis software represents the state of the practice in evaluating isolated intersection operations, this methodology presents some limitations for both signalized and unsignalized intersections within a congested network. As congestion increases, use of deterministic traffic modeling tools such as Synchro may not fully reflect the extent of vehicular queuing and spillover effects between intersections. To better evaluate the congested and multimodal traffic conditions characterized by high vehicular and pedestrian demand, dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit stops and the adjacent Caltrain rail crossing, Vissim, a microsimulation software was selected as the analysis tool for the roadway network and study intersections adjacent to the Project site and the San Bruno BART station. Vissim analyzes traffic by simulating and capturing the interactions between individual cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians and bicycles. In addition to vehicular LOS, Vissim can evaluate vehicle queuing, transit and emergency vehicle delays, pedestrian and bicycle delays, and pedestrian density – topics that are covered in the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis EIR section. Signalized Intersections The method from Chapter 19 of the HCM 6th Edition bases signalized intersection operations on the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through it. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. This method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay. Table 5 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections according to the HCM 6th Edition methodology. For select intersections where the HCM 6th Edition methodology was not able to process results (typically due to non-standard signal phasing), the HCM 2000 methodology was used instead. Unsignalized Intersections Traffic conditions at the unsignalized study intersections (stop sign and yield sign-controlled intersections) were evaluated using the method from Chapters 20 and 21 of the HCM 6th Edition. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled approach that must yield the right-of-way. At four-way stop- controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays and corresponding LOS for the entire intersection are reported. At two-way stop-controlled intersections the movement with the highest delay and corresponding LOS is reported. Table 6 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. January 4, 2022 Page 23 of 30 23 Table 5: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. ≤ 10 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10 and ≤ 20 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20 and ≤ 35 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35 and ≤ 55 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55 and ≤ 80 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Table 6: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no traffic delays. ≤ 10 B Short traffic delays. > 10 and ≤ 15 C Average traffic delays. > 15 and ≤ 25 D Long traffic delays. > 25 and ≤ 35 E Very long traffic delays. > 35 and ≤ 50 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded. > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition January 4, 2022 Page 24 of 30 24 LOS Results Table 7, Figure 11, and Figure 12 show LOS results in relation to LOS Standards in the City of San Bruno (see Figure 1 for LOS D intersections). As a transit-oriented development adjacent to the San Bruno BART station, the Project is exempt from the City of South San Francisco’s LOS standards as noted above in the policy review section. Overall, the LOS results mirror the trends described in previous sections: Project-related trips travel across several routes connecting to US-101, I-380, I- 280, and surface streets, and as such, few intersections within the study area experience a large enough change in traffic volumes to see highly congested conditions specifically due to Project trips. Overall, the analysis yielded the following findings: • Under Existing conditions, two intersections (both within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions under existing conditions, two of which do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy. • Under 2024 No Project conditions, four intersections experience LOS E or F conditions (one in South San Francisco, three in San Bruno), and two of these intersections do not meet LOS standards. under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy • Under 2024 plus Phase 1 conditions, three of the same intersections experience LOS E or F conditions and two of these intersections do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy, while one intersection improves due to shifts in traffic patterns. • Under 2040 No Project conditions, eight intersections (five within South San Francisco and three within San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, two of which do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy. • Under 2040 Project Buildout conditions, 11 intersections (six within South San Francisco and five without San Bruno) experience LOS E or F conditions, and four intersections do not meet LOS standards under the City of San Bruno’s LOS D policy. While LOS results typically worsen over time and between no project and plus project conditions, this is not always the case as traffic patterns may change and congestion may improve over time due to a range of factors including implementation of transportation and circulation improvements that allow for improved circulation. With respect to this analysis, in some locations, LOS improves between 2024 and 2040 due to signal optimization. In others, LOS improves due to shifts in traffic patterns associated with the Project’s Southline Avenue extension and new intersection. Under the Partial Circulation Scenario, Project-generated traffic would shift from a relatively balanced distribution between north, south, east, and west to a heavier concentration of trips traveling north and south on smaller residential and industrial streets such as Herman Street/Dollar Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and Victory Avenue. Additionally, cut-through traffic on Southline Avenue would not occur. As a result, while LOS would be comparatively January 4, 2022 Page 25 of 30 25 improved intersections such as El Camino Real/Sneath Lane (#12) and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue (#30), while LOS would deteriorate at intersections such as Herman Avenue/Scott Street (#11), San Bruno Avenue/San Mateo Avenue (#19), and Huntington Avenue/Herman Avenue (#21). Under these conditions, eight intersections experience LOS E or F conditions, and three intersections do not meet LOS standards (within the City of San Bruno). Although queueing effects were not simulated along smaller residential and industrial streets around the Project site, it is anticipated that residents and businesses would see more congested local street segments under the Partial Circulation Scenario that could cause additional delay and difficulty accessing driveways (particularly along Herman Street, San Mateo Avenue, and South Maple Avenue). A sensitivity test was performed to understand the effects of closing the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing (adjacent to intersections 11 and 16). This closure was found to shift traffic to the South Linden Avenue and San Bruno Avenue grade crossings, but would have minimal overall effect on intersection LOS (in part due to the shifts in traffic patterns that would already occur by adding the Southline Avenue extension). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CrestmoorCanyon 3101 W e s t O rangeAven ueC h e stnutAv Sout h Ai r port Boul evar dWestbor ough B lEl Cami no Real S a n B ru n o A v e n u e W e s t yW robraHSouth Linden AvenueEl Cami noRea l O rangeAvenueGrand Avenue Hunti ngtonAvNorthMcdonnell RoadC o u n tryC lubDr ive DubuqueAvUt a h A ven u eGatewayBlSneath La n e Linden AvSan Bruno Avenue EastSouthSpruceAvenueProduceAvEa stG randAv eunevA oetaM naSCher r y AvDor a do Wy Crestwood Dri veSpruce AvenueA valo n D rive MitchellAvenue ·82 %&280 %&380 14 15 17 24 31 20 26 25 27 18 19 22 23 11 16 28 13 10 87 2 3 1 4 29 30 12 6 9 21 \\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxdStudy Intersection Level of Service (AM) Figure 11 !Study Intersections Microsimulation Network New Street - Southline Avenue Cities South Maple AvenueHun�ng t on AvenueSea Sco� St Miller A v Baden A v Bis cui t Av Ai rport Bl San Mateo AvSan Bruno South San Francisco DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN LINDENVILLE BAYHILL TanforanShopping Center OrangeMemorial Park !5 Project Site A-C D E F Study Intersection Level of Service Does Not Meet City LOS Standard Scenario Not Analyzed2040 No Project2040 + Full Buildout2040 + Full Buildout Partial Circulation ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! CrestmoorCanyon 3101 W e s t O rangeAven ueC h e stnutAv Sout h Ai r port Boul evar dWestbor ough B lEl Cami no Real S a n B ru n o A v e n u e W e s t yW robraHSouth Linden AvenueEl Cami noRea l O rangeAvenueGrand Avenue Hunti ngtonAvNorthMcdonnell RoadC o u n tryC lubDr ive DubuqueAvUt a h A ven u eGatewayBlSneath La n e Linden AvSan Bruno Avenue EastSouthSpruceAvenueProduceAvEa stG randAv eunevA oetaM naSCher r y AvDor a do Wy Crestwood Dri veSpruce AvenueA valo n D rive MitchellAvenue ·82 %&280 %&380 14 15 17 24 31 20 26 25 27 18 19 22 23 11 16 28 13 10 87 2 3 1 4 29 30 12 6 9 21 \\Fpsf03.fpainc.local\data\Projects\2020_Projects\SF20-1089_Southline EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\CA_Template_LetterPortrait.mxdStudy Intersection Level of Service (PM) Figure 12 !Study Intersections Microsimulation Network New Street - Southline Avenue Cities South Maple AvenueHun�ng t on AvenueSea Sco� St Miller A v Baden A v Bis cui t Av Ai rport Bl San Mateo AvSan Bruno South San Francisco DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN LINDENVILLE BAYHILL TanforanShopping Center OrangeMemorial Park !5 Project Site A-C D E F Study Intersection Level of Service Does Not Meet City LOS Standard2040 No Project2040 + Full Buildout2040 + Full Buildout Partial CirculationScenario Not Analyzed January 4, 2022 Page 28 of 30 28 LOS Results Notes (Table 7) As shown on Table 7: LOS Results (bold text) indicates LOS E or F. Highlighting indicates that the intersection does not meet City LOS standards (no standards applicable in South San Francisco, noted SSF; LOS D standard for select intersections in San Bruno, noted as SB). Delay is reported as a weighted average of seconds per vehicle for all movements. As explained in Level of Service Methodology, LOS is based on the methodology in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition. Intersections 5, 6, 9, 12, and 30 were analyzed using Vissim to provide a more detailed simulation of traffic congestions at closely-spaced Project intersections. Intersections 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 were analyzed based on HCM 2000 in Synchro due to signal timing conditions incompatible with Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition analysis. All others were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition in Synchro. Calculations based on signal timing were provided by the City of South San Francisco, the City of San Bruno, and Caltrans from 2017-2020. January 4, 2022 Page 29 of 30 29 Table 7: LOS Results Intersection City Peak Hour 2017/2018 2024 No Project 2024 + Phase 1 2040 No Project 2040 + Full Buildout 2040 +Full Buildout Partial Circulation Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue1 SSF AM 27.2 C 27.5 C 27.9 C 28.7 C 30.3 C 31.4 C PM 20.7 C 22 C 23.1 C 32.4 C 37.6 D 36.5 D 2 Airport Boulevard / Baden Avenue SSF AM 42.2 D 42.3 D 41.5 D 37.6 D 37.3 D 37.1 D PM 30.4 C 30.1 C 29.6 C 56.8 E 64.3 E 47.1 D 3 Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue1 SSF AM 35.9 D 36.9 D 36.9 D 39.6 D 42.4 D 44.8 D PM 45.2 D 47.3 D 47.8 D 65.1 E 74.3 E 68.9 E 4 Linden Avenue / Baden Avenue1 SSF AM 23.7 C 23.7 C 25.4 C 24.6 C 29 C 29.6 C PM 35.4 D 36.2 D 43.5 D 60.1 E >80 F >80 F 5 Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue2 SSF AM 27.3 C 28.9 C 24.8 C 47.0 D 67.0 E 30.0 C PM 26.6 C 41.2 D 31.5 C 66.7 E 69.4 E 37.9 D 6 Linden Avenue / San Mateo Avenue2 SSF AM 6.4 A 5.6 A 11.5 B 6.8 A 8.8 A 19.1 B PM 7.5 A 8.8 A 17.3 B 10.2 B >80 F 18.4 B 7 Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue1 SSF AM 34.6 C 37.3 D 39.4 D 38.6 D 41.7 D 41.8 D PM 42.8 D 43 D 43.7 D 41.6 D 45.2 D 47.1 D 8 Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue SSF AM 42.1 D 45.9 D 47.4 D 55.9 E 62.6 E 53.6 D PM 53.9 D 67.0 E 70.0 E >80 F >80 F >80 F 9 Huntington Avenue / San Bruno BART Station2 SB AM 10.0 A 10.8 B 10.8 A 8.4 B 22.6 C 12.0 B PM 9.2 A 9.7 A 11.4 A 8.7 A 15.2 C 13.0 B 10 Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane / NB 101 On/Off Ramps1 SSF AM 30.3 C 33.5 C 33.9 C 41.4 D 40.1 D 54.6 D PM 27.3 C 29.0 C 29.6 C 46.9 D 48.8 D 54.7 D 11 Herman Street / Scott Street SB AM 8.2 A 7.6 A 8.4 A 10.7 A 10.1 B >80 F PM 6.8 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 10.5 B 9.9 A 35.2 E 12 El Camino Real / Sneath Lane2 SB AM 29.5 C 30.8 C 32.0 C 33.1 C 42.4 D 33.6 C PM 42.5 D 44.4 D 48.8 D 48.3 D 77.0 E 51.4 D 13 Spruce Avenue / Huntington Avenue SB AM Not analyzed – no data available due to COVID-19 PM 14 Sneath Lane / 280 SB On/Off Ramp SB AM 78.6 E >80 F >80 F >80 F >80 F >80 F PM 17.4 B 18.5 B 19.7 B 25.3 C 29.7 C 29.5 C 15 Sneath Lane / 280 NB On/Off Ramp SB AM 16.0 B 16.8 B 18.0 B 20.6 C 30.1 C 28.8 C PM 19.0 B 21 C 22.2 C 27.3 C 31.2 C 31.7 C January 4, 2022 Page 30 of 30 30 Intersection City Peak Hour 2017/2018 2024 No Project 2024 + Project 2040 No Project 2040 + Full Buildout 2040 +Full Buildout Partial Circulation Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 16 San Mateo Avenue / Scott Street SB AM 6.0 A 6.2 A 5.7 A 7.1 A 7.4 A 10.2 B PM 6.3 A 6.6 A 5.8 A 7.5 A 7.1 A 11.9 B 17 Sneath Lane / Cherry Avenue SB AM 7.1 A 7.3 A 7.6 A 8.9 A 10.5 B 10.2 B PM 10.3 B 10.6 B 10.6 B 12.7 B 13.4 B 13.5 B 18 San Bruno Avenue / Huntington Avenue1 SB AM 15.0 B 13.8 B 15.0 B 17.3 B 20.1 C 23.1 C PM 16.6 B 17.5 B 16.4 B 22.1 C 18.7 B 24.9 C 19 San Bruno Avenue / San Mateo Avenue1 SB AM 16.5 B 15.5 B 17.5 B 18.1 B 20.1 C 29.5 C PM 19.8 B 20.5 C 20.2 C 25.6 C 25.8 C 28.1 C 20 San Bruno Avenue / 280 SB Off Ramp SB AM 21.3 C 21.4 C 21.5 C 21.8 C 22.3 C 22.1 B PM 12.5 B 12.6 B 12.8 B 15.6 B 15.9 B 15.4 B 21 Huntington Avenue / Herman Street SB AM 11.9 B 12.3 B 11.8 B 13.8 B 18.2 C 43.0 E PM 19.5 C 22.2 C 18.9 C 32.1 D 32.6 D 73.0 F 22 San Bruno Avenue / 101 SB On/Off Ramps1 SB AM 20.5 C 20.5 C 20.9 C 21.3 C 23.0 C 23.4 C PM 19.9 B 20.2 C 21.0 C 22 C 26.5 C 27.3 C 23 San Bruno Avenue / 101 NB On/Off Ramps1 SB AM 20.5 C 21.0 C 22.6 C 27.8 C 34.4 C 34.6 C PM 27.0 C 27.9 C 28.9 C 34.5 C 37.3 D 38.1 D 24 San Bruno Avenue / Cherry Avenue SB AM 37.3 D 40.3 D 40.7 D 67.8 E 74.9 E 78.8 E PM 53.1 D 60.9 E 66.1 E 37.9 D 40.8 D 38.1 D 25 El Camino Real / 380 EB On/Off Ramp1 SB AM 21.0 C 18.0 B 18.5 B 22.6 C 21.3 C 20.7 C PM 32.8 C 33.2 C 32.0 C 39.3 D 38.1 D 41.1 D 26 El Camino Real / 380 WB On/Off Ramp1 SB AM 14.3 B 15.5 B 17.5 B 9.9 A 34.4 C 26.8 C PM 21.7 C 23.9 C 24.4 C 15.6 B 25.2 C 27.0 C 27 El Camino Real / San Bruno Avenue SB AM 40.5 D 38.1 D 39.2 D 42.7 D 52.9 D 45.0 D PM 60.2 E 64.2 E 52.8 D 56.3 E 63.6 E 53.3 D 28 El Camino Real / Spruce Avenue / Hazelwood Drive SB AM 28.2 C 29.1 C 28.2 C 30.9 C 32.6 C 37.7 D PM 35.1 D 36.6 D 35.6 D 44.2 D 46.8 D 52.3 D 29 Sneath Lane / Sea Biscuit Avenue SB AM Not analyzed – no data available due to COVID-19 PM 30 Sneath Lane / Huntington Avenue2 SB AM 13.1 B 13.1 B 17.4 B 13.6 B 18.2 B 20.6 C PM 25.3 C 25.3 C 33.8 C 26.9 C 56.9 E 27.0 C 31 San Bruno Avenue / 280 NB Off Ramp SB AM 21.0 C 21.1 C 20.3 C 24.6 C 23.7 C 25.6 C PM 24.5 C 25.5 C 25.6 C 26.1 C 25.5 C 26.5 C Notes: 1HCM 2000 Methodology 2Analyzed with Vissim instead of Synchro HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 52 449 154 3 29 126 0 0 362 32 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 52 449 154 3 29 126 0 0 362 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1692 3439 3417 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1692 3439 3417 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 59 510 175 3 33 143 0 0 411 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 59 342 346 0 0 176 0 0 441 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)6 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)4 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 52.4 52.4 11.4 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 52.4 52.4 11.4 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.52 0.52 0.11 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 864 886 392 785 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.05 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.20 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.40 0.39 0.45 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 14.3 14.2 41.4 34.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 2.9 Delay (s) 42.2 15.7 15.5 42.5 36.9 Level of Service D B B D D Approach Delay (s) 42.2 15.6 42.5 36.9 Approach LOS D B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 526 282 25 125 141 3 374 207 Future Volume (veh/h) 526 282 25 125 141 3 374 207 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 380 392 130 147 390 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 444 425 1209 1874 492 212 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.41 0.62 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1299 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 380 392 130 147 390 29 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1299 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.7 26.2 2.7 1.9 12.4 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.7 26.2 2.7 1.9 12.4 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 444 425 1209 1874 492 212 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.92 0.11 0.08 0.79 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 500 478 1209 1874 1190 512 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.79 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.3 34.2 18.1 7.6 40.2 35.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.7 19.8 0.0 0.1 9.9 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.9 11.4 0.9 0.6 5.2 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.0 54.0 18.1 7.6 50.2 36.9 LnGrp LOS D D B A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 772 277 419 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.1 12.6 49.2 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.7 20.9 66.6 33.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 14.4 3.9 28.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.6 0.6 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 186 205 82 192 110 59 33 333 282 383 391 124 Future Volume (vph) 186 205 82 192 110 59 33 333 282 383 391 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3000 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2956 1285 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3000 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2956 1285 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) 196 216 86 202 116 62 35 351 297 403 412 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 480 0 202 116 6 35 351 297 266 549 45 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 58 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.6 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.4 16.4 73.5 36.3 36.3 36.3 Effective Green, g (s) 22.6 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.4 16.4 73.5 36.3 36.3 36.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.35 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 645 294 159 135 228 457 916 491 1021 444 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.07 c0.08 0.02 c0.12 0.23 c0.19 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.69 0.73 0.05 0.15 0.77 0.32 0.54 0.54 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.5 45.3 45.6 42.3 38.3 42.5 6.1 27.7 27.6 23.3 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 4.1 6.5 15.4 0.1 0.2 7.3 0.2 4.2 2.0 0.5 Delay (s) 42.6 51.9 61.0 42.4 38.5 49.7 6.3 31.9 29.6 23.8 Level of Service D D E D D D A C C C Approach Delay (s) 42.6 53.1 30.3 29.5 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 347 39 233 75 11 9 118 428 40 229 28 Future Volume (vph) 27 347 39 233 75 11 9 118 428 40 229 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2765 1413 1451 1482 2224 1451 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 2765 1413 1451 1450 2224 1386 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 29 373 42 251 81 12 10 127 460 43 246 30 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 0 170 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 434 0 251 85 0 0 137 290 0 314 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.7 16.6 16.6 19.7 39.8 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 26.7 16.6 16.6 19.7 36.3 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.50 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1011 321 329 391 1105 374 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.18 0.06 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.23 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.78 0.26 0.35 0.26 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 17.4 26.5 23.2 21.5 10.6 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 10.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 14.5 Delay (s) 18.8 37.4 23.3 21.7 10.7 39.7 Level of Service B D C C B D Approach Delay (s) 18.8 33.6 13.2 39.7 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 122 182 147 307 167 168 160 39 404 202 644 98 Future Volume (vph) 122 182 147 307 167 168 160 39 404 202 644 98 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 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 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96 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 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1254 2625 1201 1380 2839 1309 1687 2867 1703 3406 1490 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1254 2625 1201 1380 2839 1309 1687 2867 1703 3406 1490 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) 128 192 155 323 176 177 168 41 425 213 678 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 134 0 0 147 0 386 0 0 0 64 Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 216 21 165 334 30 168 80 0 213 678 39 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 15 3 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 6 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 31% 31% 31% 19% 19% 19% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.4 14.4 14.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 14.7 9.6 44.9 39.8 39.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.4 14.4 14.4 18.0 18.0 18.0 14.7 9.6 44.9 39.8 39.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.43 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.9 4.0 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 171 360 164 236 486 224 236 262 728 1291 564 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.08 c0.12 0.12 c0.10 0.03 0.13 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.60 0.13 0.70 0.69 0.14 0.71 0.30 0.29 0.53 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 42.6 42.6 39.8 41.0 40.9 36.9 43.1 44.6 19.7 25.3 20.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.74 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 1.8 0.1 8.3 3.8 0.3 8.2 0.2 1.0 1.5 0.2 Delay (s) 46.8 44.4 39.9 38.2 33.9 20.0 51.3 44.8 20.7 26.8 21.0 Level of Service DDDDCCDD CCC Approach Delay (s) 43.5 31.3 46.5 24.9 Approach LOS DCDC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 96 314 368 29 159 18 330 456 349 22 116 187 Future Volume (veh/h) 96 314 368 29 159 18 330 456 349 22 116 187 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 338 116 31 171 15 355 490 0 24 125 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16 Cap, veh/h 224 406 337 85 213 19 1445 1486 164 172 139 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1430 1499 1422 125 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1338 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 338 116 31 0 186 355 490 0 24 125 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1430 1499 0 1546 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1338 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 20.0 7.2 2.1 0.0 12.2 6.9 9.6 0.0 1.4 7.7 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 20.0 7.2 2.1 0.0 12.2 6.9 9.6 0.0 1.4 7.7 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 224 406 337 85 0 232 1445 1486 164 172 139 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.83 0.34 0.36 0.00 0.80 0.25 0.33 0.15 0.73 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 196 426 354 144 0 364 1502 1545 353 371 298 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 39.7 33.4 47.7 0.0 43.1 19.0 19.8 0.0 42.8 45.6 42.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 11.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 16.1 2.5 0.8 0.0 4.8 2.7 3.9 0.0 0.6 3.3 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.6 95.4 33.8 48.7 0.0 46.2 19.3 20.2 0.0 43.0 47.8 42.7 LnGrp LOS D F C D A D B C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 557 217 845 A 162 Approach Delay, s/veh 72.8 46.6 19.8 46.7 Approach LOS E D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 27.5 51.7 17.1 20.3 15.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 26.0 27.4 11.4 * 25 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 22.0 11.6 8.2 14.2 9.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 2.8 0.0 0.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 829 18 670 11 9 14 199 221 16 24 427 118 Future Volume (vph) 829 18 670 11 9 14 199 221 16 24 427 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1695 1482 1656 3278 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1695 1482 1656 3278 1626 3252 1455 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) 873 19 705 12 9 15 209 233 17 25 449 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 497 0 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 94 Lane Group Flow (vph) 445 447 208 0 21 1 209 246 0 25 449 30 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 3.7 3.7 14.0 28.6 2.7 17.3 17.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 3.7 3.7 14.0 28.6 2.7 17.3 17.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.41 0.04 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 481 483 797 88 77 328 1327 62 796 356 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.27 c0.01 c0.13 0.07 0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.93 0.26 0.24 0.01 0.64 0.19 0.40 0.56 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 24.1 19.0 32.1 31.7 26.0 13.5 33.2 23.3 20.5 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 23.7 23.7 0.2 1.4 0.1 4.0 0.1 4.2 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 47.8 47.8 19.2 33.5 31.8 30.0 13.6 37.4 24.3 20.7 Level of Service D D B C C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 35.2 32.8 21.1 24.1 Approach LOS D C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 710 280 47 267 190 26 14 161 350 300 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 710 280 47 267 190 26 14 161 350 300 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 780 298 52 293 80 29 15 0 385 330 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 88 639 244 86 926 782 53 27 437 427 27 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1288 492 1781 1870 1580 1193 617 1585 1781 1740 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 55 0 1078 52 293 80 44 0 0 385 0 351 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1780 1781 1870 1580 1811 0 1585 1781 0 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 0.0 45.0 2.6 8.5 2.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 16.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 0.0 45.0 2.6 8.5 2.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 16.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 88 0 884 86 926 782 80 0 437 0 454 V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 1.22 0.60 0.32 0.10 0.55 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 0 884 393 928 784 439 0 550 0 571 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.2 0.0 22.8 42.3 13.7 12.2 42.4 0.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 31.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.7 0.0 109.3 2.5 0.3 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 44.0 1.2 3.3 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 7.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 0.0 132.1 44.8 14.0 12.3 44.6 0.0 0.0 44.1 0.0 35.6 LnGrp LOS D A F D B B D A D A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1133 425 44 A 736 Approach Delay, s/veh 127.9 17.4 44.6 40.1 Approach LOS F B D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 49.4 25.8 7.9 49.5 7.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 10.5 20.9 4.6 47.0 4.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 78.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 2 1031 187 103 367 1 134 4 233 0 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 2 1031 187 103 367 1 134 4 233 0 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 1133 165 113 403 1 153 0 11 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 3 1586 680 318 666 2 362 0 161 0 6 Arrive On Green 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 6 3641 1561 1781 3730 9 3563 0 1585 0 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 609 526 165 113 202 202 153 0 11 0 2 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1777 1561 1781 1870 1869 1781 0 1585 0 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 12.8 3.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 12.8 3.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 814 774 680 318 334 334 362 0 161 0 6 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.68 0.24 0.36 0.61 0.61 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1418 1347 1184 1186 1245 1244 1581 0 704 0 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.8 12.2 9.6 19.5 20.5 20.5 22.8 0.0 22.0 0.0 26.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 4.0 1.0 1.1 2.2 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.8 13.0 9.8 20.0 21.8 21.8 23.1 0.0 22.0 0.0 37.8 LnGrp LOS B B A B C C C A C A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1300 517 164 2 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.0 21.4 23.0 37.8 Approach LOS B C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 9.0 27.6 3.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 4.2 16.7 2.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.3 6.6 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 Cap, veh/h 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 LnGrp LOS A Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 952 312 1 78 356 3 115 149 Future Volume (veh/h) 952 312 1 78 356 3 115 149 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 992 220 81 371 120 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2061 898 118 2641 286 131 Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.74 0.08 0.08 Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1548 1781 3647 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 992 220 81 371 120 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1548 1781 1777 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 1.4 2.3 1.5 1.7 0.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 1.4 2.3 1.5 1.7 0.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2061 898 118 2641 286 131 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.24 0.68 0.14 0.42 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4191 1826 1205 6871 2472 1134 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.3 0.8 23.6 1.9 22.5 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.6 1.0 26.2 1.9 23.5 22.3 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1212 452 135 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 6.3 23.4 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 35.0 43.4 8.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 10.4 3.5 3.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 14.9 3.7 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 89 457 49 6 310 0 0 178 7 84 125 124 Future Volume (vph) 89 457 49 6 310 0 0 178 7 84 125 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 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 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3155 1719 3209 1797 1719 3139 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3155 1719 3209 1797 1719 3139 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) 97 497 53 7 337 0 0 193 8 91 136 135 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 86 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 545 0 7 337 0 0 199 0 91 185 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 13 13 9 9 17 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 30.1 1.0 24.2 13.9 6.8 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 31.1 1.0 25.2 13.9 6.8 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.47 0.02 0.38 0.21 0.10 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 1473 25 1214 375 175 1150 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.17 0.00 0.11 c0.11 c0.05 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.54 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.53 0.52 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 11.4 32.4 14.4 23.5 28.4 14.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.45 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 2.2 0.1 1.5 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 30.2 11.6 49.2 6.3 24.9 29.6 14.3 Level of Service C B D A C C B Approach Delay (s) 14.4 7.2 24.9 18.1 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 136 412 0 66 305 117 4 112 131 0 26 70 Future Volume (vph) 136 412 0 66 305 117 4 112 131 0 26 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3209 1773 1479 1567 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3209 1767 1479 1567 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 149 453 0 73 335 129 4 123 144 0 29 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 91 0 48 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 149 453 0 73 433 0 0 127 53 0 58 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 7 5 1 6 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)7 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 24.8 6.3 19.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 24.8 6.3 20.4 25.4 24.4 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.37 0.09 0.31 0.38 0.37 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 1256 159 982 673 541 597 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.04 c0.14 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.36 0.46 0.44 0.19 0.10 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 15.2 28.5 18.5 13.7 13.9 13.2 Progression Factor 1.16 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 29.3 10.0 29.3 18.8 13.9 13.9 13.3 Level of Service C B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.8 20.3 13.9 13.3 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 862 347 201 385 0 0 0 0 326 335 165 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 862 347 201 385 0 0 0 0 326 335 165 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 907 0 212 405 0 229 513 53 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 0 2173 840 2575 0 317 666 282 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.48 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 907 0 212 405 0 229 513 53 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 10.8 11.7 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 10.8 11.7 2.5 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2173 840 2575 0 317 666 282 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.25 0.16 0.00 0.72 0.77 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2173 840 2575 0 531 1114 472 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 18.2 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0 35.0 35.3 31.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 5.3 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.8 0.0 18.6 0.1 0.0 36.1 36.0 31.7 LnGrp LOS A B B A A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 907 A 617 795 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.8 6.5 35.8 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.7 43.0 20.3 69.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 * 38 26.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 13.1 13.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 8.9 2.2 4.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 19 18 137 0 62 5 0 200 142 143 175 Future Vol, veh/h 19 19 18 137 0 62 5 0 200 142 143 175 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 21 21 20 149 0 67 5 0 217 154 155 190 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.5 13.8 12.6 10.2 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 34% 69% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 41% 34% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 59% 32% 31% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 105 242 56 199 143 88 88 LT Vol 0 0 19 137 143 0 0 Through Vol 105 100 19 0 0 88 88 RT Vol 0 142 18 62 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 114 263 61 216 155 95 95 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.204 0.439 0.115 0.4 0.284 0.161 0.113 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.424 6.007 6.827 6.65 6.589 6.081 4.285 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 557 597 523 541 544 589 831 Service Time 4.18 3.762 4.595 4.403 4.342 3.834 2.037 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 0.441 0.117 0.399 0.285 0.161 0.114 HCM Control Delay 10.8 13.4 10.5 13.8 12 10 7.6 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 2.2 0.4 1.9 1.2 0.6 0.4 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 459 313 4 147 381 0 0 0 0 1 242 Future Volume (vph) 0 459 313 4 147 381 0 0 0 0 1 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3142 1535 3226 1603 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3142 1535 3226 1603 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 478 326 4 153 397 0 0 0 0 1 252 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 673 0 0 142 412 0 0 0 0 0 127 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 3 3 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 20.3 20.3 10.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 20.3 20.3 10.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 962 475 998 261 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.09 c0.13 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.70 0.30 0.41 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.2 17.9 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.2 0.4 0.3 1.4 Delay (s) 22.3 17.6 18.2 26.4 Level of Service C B B C Approach Delay (s) 22.3 18.1 0.0 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1 151 Future Volume (vph) 1 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1607 1509 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1607 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 1 157 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 83 Lane Group Flow (vph) 127 74 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% Turn Type NA custom Protected Phases 4 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 30.8 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 30.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 708 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 24.9 9.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 26.4 9.8 Level of Service C A Approach Delay (s) 20.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 212 488 0 0 218 111 261 0 275 69 0 50 Future Volume (vph) 212 488 0 0 218 111 261 0 275 69 0 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1473 1671 1475 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1473 1671 1475 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 247 567 0 0 253 129 303 0 320 80 0 58 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000099002220053 Lane Group Flow (vph) 247 567 0 0 253 30 0 303 98 80 0 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 4 4 5 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 30.9 14.9 14.9 15.8 15.8 5.7 5.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 30.9 14.9 14.9 15.8 15.8 5.7 5.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.48 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 583 850 779 343 413 364 149 133 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.32 0.08 c0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.18 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.67 0.32 0.09 0.73 0.27 0.54 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 12.6 20.3 19.2 22.1 19.4 27.8 26.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.1 1.9 0.0 Delay (s) 23.8 14.1 20.4 19.2 27.8 19.5 29.7 26.6 Level of Service C B C B C B C C Approach Delay (s) 17.0 20.0 23.6 28.4 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 63.9 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 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 348 920 63 22 511 92 138 102 38 117 64 84 Future Volume (veh/h) 348 920 63 22 511 92 138 102 38 117 64 84 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 362 958 62 23 532 81 144 106 40 122 67 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 373 1606 104 79 988 150 211 354 134 257 128 797 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3361 218 1767 3065 465 1218 1276 481 688 459 1625 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 362 502 518 23 305 308 144 0 146 189 0 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1816 1767 1763 1768 1218 0 1757 1147 0 1625 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.4 23.9 23.9 1.1 12.8 12.9 9.7 0.0 5.9 9.4 0.0 2.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.4 23.9 23.9 1.1 12.8 12.9 25.0 0.0 5.9 15.3 0.0 2.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.27 0.65 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 867 79 568 570 211 0 488 384 0 797 V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.60 0.60 0.29 0.54 0.54 0.68 0.00 0.30 0.49 0.00 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 867 98 568 570 211 0 488 384 0 797 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.00 0.95 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.6 29.8 29.8 41.6 25.0 25.0 40.6 0.0 25.6 30.4 0.0 12.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 34.8 2.6 2.5 0.6 3.0 3.0 7.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 12.2 11.7 12.0 0.5 5.6 5.6 3.6 0.0 2.5 3.7 0.0 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.4 32.5 32.4 42.3 28.0 28.1 47.9 0.0 25.7 30.8 0.0 12.5 LnGrp LOS E CCDCCDACCAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1382 636 290 277 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.9 28.6 36.7 25.0 Approach LOS DCDC Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.4 14.9 17.3 3.1 25.9 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.6 0.0 8.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 493 0 673 0 791 306 0 2090 234 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 493 0 673 0 791 306 0 2090 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1495 5036 1523 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1495 5036 1523 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 0 508 0 694 0 815 315 0 2155 241 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 128 0 0 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 508 0 578 0 815 187 0 2155 181 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)13 10 10 13 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.1 39.7 71.3 71.3 89.9 89.9 Effective Green, g (s) 21.1 36.1 71.3 71.3 89.9 89.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.30 0.59 0.59 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 597 830 2992 888 3772 1140 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.21 0.16 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.70 0.27 0.21 0.57 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 47.9 37.1 11.8 11.3 6.6 4.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.09 4.13 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.8 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.3 Delay (s)58.7 39.2 13.1 47.1 7.2 4.6 Level of Service E D B D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 47.4 22.6 7.0 Approach LOS A D C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 125 0 132 000097257301511 1072 Future Volume (vph) 125 0 132 000097257301511 1072 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1502 1490 4552 5036 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1502 1490 4552 5036 1495 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) 133 0 140 00001034 610 0 1607 1140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 40 40 00000000168 Lane Group Flow (vph) 94 52 47 00001644 0 0 1607 972 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 9 11 11 9 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 Effective Green, g (s) 9.5 9.5 9.5 101.5 101.5 101.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.85 0.85 0.85 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 131 118 117 3850 4259 1264 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.03 0.36 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.65 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.44 0.41 0.43 0.38 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 53.9 52.7 52.6 2.2 2.1 4.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.91 8.75 Incremental Delay, d2 14.4 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 3.9 Delay (s) 68.4 53.7 53.4 1.4 2.1 39.6 Level of Service E D D A A D Approach Delay (s) 58.7 0.0 1.4 17.7 Approach LOS EAAB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 454 185 201 241 119 214 1043 142 10 201 882 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 454 185 201 241 119 214 1043 142 10 201 882 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 218 478 111 212 254 64 225 1098 81 212 928 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 244 1007 430 266 624 153 697 1490 455 712 1490 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1506 3428 2772 680 3428 5066 1545 3428 5066 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 218 478 111 212 159 159 225 1098 81 212 928 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1506 1714 1763 1689 1714 1689 1545 1714 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.6 13.4 4.2 7.3 9.2 9.7 6.7 23.4 3.8 6.3 19.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.6 13.4 4.2 7.3 9.2 9.7 6.7 23.4 3.8 6.3 19.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 1007 430 266 397 380 697 1490 455 712 1490 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.47 0.26 0.80 0.40 0.42 0.32 0.74 0.18 0.30 0.62 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 295 1234 527 371 529 507 697 1490 455 712 1490 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.9 35.4 12.5 54.4 39.6 39.8 40.7 38.2 20.2 40.2 36.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.9 0.1 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 5.7 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.0 2.8 10.0 1.8 2.6 8.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.9 35.5 12.6 54.9 39.6 39.8 40.8 41.5 21.1 40.2 38.6 LnGrp LOS E D B D D D D D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 807 530 1404 1201 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.9 45.8 40.2 37.7 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.9 39.9 20.1 32.1 28.4 39.4 12.8 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 35.3 20.0 * 36 13.0 35.3 13.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 21.0 16.6 11.7 8.3 25.4 9.3 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 123 Future Volume (veh/h) 123 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 Cap, veh/h 455 Arrive On Green 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1545 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1545 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 455 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 455 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.2 LnGrp LOS B Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 119 50 239 68 229 23 51 665 359 20 436 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 119 50 239 68 229 23 51 665 359 20 436 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 125 25 162 198 39 54 700 137 459 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 122 319 70 221 358 298 70 2203 681 494 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 389 1653 360 1211 1856 1541 1767 5066 1567 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 0 112 162 198 39 54 700 137 459 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 793 0 1609 1211 1856 1541 1767 1689 1567 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 0.0 7.2 15.9 11.6 2.5 3.6 10.9 6.5 30.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.2 0.0 7.2 23.2 11.6 2.5 3.6 10.9 6.5 30.3 Prop In Lane 0.58 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 311 221 358 298 70 2203 681 494 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.36 0.73 0.55 0.13 0.77 0.32 0.20 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 359 0 500 221 358 298 265 2203 681 648 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.0 0.0 42.0 52.1 43.7 40.1 57.1 22.2 21.0 42.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.7 11.9 1.8 0.2 16.1 0.4 0.7 16.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 3.0 5.6 5.5 1.0 1.9 4.4 2.5 15.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.6 0.0 42.7 64.0 45.6 40.3 73.2 22.6 21.7 59.0 LnGrp LOS D A D E D D E C C E Approach Vol, veh/h 202 399 891 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 52.5 25.5 Approach LOS D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 85.4 26.9 36.5 56.6 26.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 53.6 19.0 44.0 27.6 37.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 15.1 25.2 32.3 12.9 19.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 11.9 0.0 1.2 4.7 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1196 44 Future Volume (veh/h) 1196 44 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1259 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 Cap, veh/h 3390 118 Arrive On Green 0.67 0.67 Sat Flow, veh/h 5025 176 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 846 457 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1823 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 13.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 13.1 Prop In Lane 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2279 1230 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2279 1230 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.5 8.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 5.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.9 9.3 LnGrp LOS A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1762 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.1 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 317 870 0 0 477 256 113 227 461 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 317 870 0 0 477 256 113 227 461 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 327 897 0 0 492 0 116 346 354 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 699 2258 0 0 1343 451 474 402 Arrive On Green 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 327 897 0 0 492 0 116 346 354 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 4.7 15.3 19.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 4.7 15.3 19.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 699 2258 0 0 1343 451 474 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.26 0.73 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 699 2258 0 0 1343 574 603 511 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 26.8 30.8 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.2 11.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.9 6.9 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 30.2 0.0 26.9 33.0 44.2 LnGrp LOS C A A A C C C D Approach Vol, veh/h 1224 492 A 816 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 30.2 37.0 Approach LOS A C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.2 23.2 39.0 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.0 13.0 * 34 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.3 13.4 21.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.5 0.3 4.3 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 4: Train & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.8 8.3 3.8 4.7 Vehicles Entered 156 90 12 258 Vehicles Exited 157 90 12 259 Hourly Exit Rate 157 90 12 259 Input Volume 158 84 10 251 % of Volume 100 108 117 103 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.4 9.2 2.8 3.9 4.5 2.7 7.3 11.0 9.6 10.1 6.7 4.8 Vehicles Entered 4 6 12 49 3 34 5 155 112 39 127 3 Vehicles Exited 4 6 12 49 3 34 5 154 111 40 127 3 Hourly Exit Rate 4 6 12 49 3 34 5 154 111 40 127 3 Input Volume 5 5 13 47 3 30 5 155 111 41 123 2 % of Volume 80 120 91 104 100 113 100 99 100 97 103 150 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.2 Vehicles Entered 549 Vehicles Exited 548 Hourly Exit Rate 548 Input Volume 541 % of Volume 101 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.8 0.8 4.0 6.3 7.0 6.4 4.3 6.0 Vehicles Entered 93 10 61 51 224 132 34 605 Vehicles Exited 93 10 61 51 224 131 34 604 Hourly Exit Rate 93 10 61 51 224 131 34 604 Input Volume 95 10 61 48 229 131 31 605 % of Volume 98 100 100 106 98 100 111 100 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.2 Vehicles Entered 930 Vehicles Exited 927 Hourly Exit Rate 927 Input Volume 2543 % of Volume 36 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 4: Train & Scott St Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 79 87 32 Average Queue (ft) 38 21 6 95th Queue (ft) 84 65 26 Link Distance (ft) 5 142 1849 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 33 58 200 132 Average Queue (ft) 16 30 68 62 95th Queue (ft) 40 47 142 107 Link Distance (ft) 525 5 1137 1856 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 107 130 102 Average Queue (ft) 48 67 53 95th Queue (ft) 84 105 89 Link Distance (ft) 174 939 1430 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 20 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 85 272 302 2 122 387 0 0 264 92 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 85 272 302 2 122 387 0 0 264 92 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1741 3488 3275 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1741 3488 3275 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 93 299 332 2 134 425 0 0 290 101 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 93 269 364 0 0 559 0 0 311 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 13.5 13.5 12.9 10.4 Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 13.5 13.5 12.9 10.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 440 470 899 681 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.16 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.61 0.77 0.62 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 16.0 16.8 16.4 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 6.2 11.8 1.5 0.5 Delay (s) 15.0 22.2 28.6 17.9 17.8 Level of Service B C C B B Approach Delay (s) 15.0 25.9 17.9 17.8 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 344 222 19 297 334 3 803 421 Future Volume (veh/h) 344 222 19 297 334 3 803 421 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 229 239 316 355 854 154 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 301 277 1121 2276 978 435 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.72 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1578 1449 3061 3230 3230 1399 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 229 239 316 355 854 154 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1399 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 16.0 7.3 3.5 25.7 8.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 16.0 7.3 3.5 25.7 8.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 301 277 1121 2276 978 435 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.86 0.28 0.16 0.87 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 521 478 1121 2276 1240 551 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 0.85 0.85 0.55 0.55 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 39.2 22.4 4.3 32.6 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 3.1 0.0 0.1 6.3 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 5.9 2.6 1.0 10.3 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 42.3 22.4 4.4 38.9 27.9 LnGrp LOS D D C A D C Approach Vol, veh/h 468 671 1008 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.0 12.9 37.2 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.2 35.7 76.9 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 27.7 5.5 18.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.4 1.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 152 50 85 638 233 232 59 455 120 108 447 102 Future Volume (vph) 152 50 85 638 233 232 59 455 120 108 447 102 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2893 3060 1660 1387 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1333 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2893 3060 1660 1387 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1333 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) 157 52 88 658 240 239 61 469 124 111 461 105 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 81 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 255 0 658 240 64 61 469 124 73 499 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 74 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 6 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.1 32.2 32.2 32.2 21.0 21.0 91.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.1 32.2 32.2 32.2 21.0 21.0 91.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.76 0.23 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 484 821 445 372 270 541 1049 328 689 311 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.22 0.14 0.04 c0.15 0.09 0.05 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.80 0.54 0.17 0.23 0.87 0.12 0.22 0.72 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 40.9 37.6 33.7 42.5 48.1 3.8 37.2 42.4 35.9 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 0.5 5.7 1.3 0.2 0.3 13.6 0.0 1.6 6.5 0.5 Delay (s) 46.1 46.6 38.8 33.9 42.8 61.7 3.9 38.8 49.0 36.4 Level of Service D D D C D E A D D D Approach Delay (s) 46.1 42.3 49.0 45.9 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 45.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 30 170 35 353 238 23 17 188 409 36 234 41 Future Volume (vph) 30 170 35 353 238 23 17 188 409 36 234 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 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 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2724 1413 1462 1481 2224 1439 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 2724 1413 1462 1424 2224 1368 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 32 183 38 380 256 25 18 202 440 39 252 44 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 197 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 238 0 380 277 0 0 220 243 0 329 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 9 9 19 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 2 1 2 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.2 27.0 27.0 22.8 53.3 22.8 Effective Green, g (s) 30.2 27.0 27.0 22.8 49.8 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.55 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 914 423 438 360 1230 346 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.27 0.19 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.24 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.90 0.63 0.61 0.20 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 30.2 27.2 29.7 10.1 33.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 20.7 2.2 2.2 0.0 35.3 Delay (s) 22.5 50.9 29.4 31.8 10.1 68.4 Level of Service C D C C B E Approach Delay (s) 22.5 41.8 17.4 68.4 Approach LOS C D B E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 169 200 760 224 378 101 15 269 158 827 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 169 169 200 760 224 378 101 15 269 158 827 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 199 148 0 800 236 0 106 16 0 166 871 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 381 200 878 461 142 821 387 1393 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3450 1811 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 199 148 0 800 236 0 106 16 0 166 871 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 9.5 0.0 27.0 13.4 0.0 7.8 0.4 0.0 9.7 23.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 9.5 0.0 27.0 13.4 0.0 7.8 0.4 0.0 9.7 23.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 381 200 878 461 142 821 387 1393 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.74 0.91 0.51 0.75 0.02 0.43 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 635 334 914 480 160 821 387 1393 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 51.7 0.0 43.4 38.3 0.0 53.3 33.2 0.0 40.4 29.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 1.9 0.0 6.8 0.4 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.5 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 4.4 0.0 12.4 6.1 0.0 3.6 0.2 0.0 4.5 10.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.8 53.6 0.0 50.2 38.8 0.0 66.0 33.3 0.0 42.8 30.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 347 A 1036 A 122 A 1037 A Approach Delay, s/veh 52.0 47.6 61.7 32.6 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 52.3 17.8 31.2 35.8 35.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 36.0 22.1 17.1 * 31 31.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 25.8 11.5 11.7 2.4 29.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 50 100 391 58 355 14 486 192 61 5 189 521 Future Volume (veh/h) 50 100 391 58 355 14 486 192 61 5 189 521 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 53 131 123 62 378 11 517 204 0 5 201 368 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 127 424 382 137 458 13 875 900 391 410 332 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.08 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1484 1725 1749 51 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1489 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 53 131 123 62 0 389 517 204 0 5 201 368 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1484 1725 0 1800 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1489 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 6.4 7.3 3.6 0.0 22.1 14.0 4.8 0.0 0.2 10.0 23.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 6.4 7.3 3.6 0.0 22.1 14.0 4.8 0.0 0.2 10.0 23.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 127 424 382 137 0 471 875 900 391 410 332 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.31 0.32 0.45 0.00 0.83 0.59 0.23 0.01 0.49 1.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 492 410 182 0 497 959 986 391 410 332 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.4 34.1 31.6 46.1 0.0 36.5 33.4 30.0 0.0 31.8 35.6 40.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.0 9.7 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 81.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 5.3 2.5 1.6 0.0 10.5 5.9 2.0 0.0 0.1 4.5 16.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0 44.2 31.9 47.0 0.0 46.2 36.2 30.5 0.0 31.8 35.9 122.7 LnGrp LOS D D C D A D D C C D F Approach Vol, veh/h 307 451 721 A 574 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.8 46.3 34.6 91.5 Approach LOS D D C F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 28.9 35.4 11.9 29.4 28.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.1 29.0 23.4 11.1 29.0 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 9.3 16.0 5.1 24.1 25.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 381 24 271 31 44 29 5 352 335 45 11 18 Future Volume (vph) 381 24 271 31 44 29 5 352 335 45 11 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1631 2682 1756 1482 1703 3313 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1631 2682 1756 1482 1703 3313 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 397 25 282 32 46 30 5 367 349 47 11 19 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 224 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 220 58 0 78 3 0 372 389 0 0 30 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 18 18 26 26 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.2 7.2 20.8 36.9 2.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 16.0 7.2 7.2 20.8 36.9 2.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.47 0.04 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 332 335 551 162 137 455 1571 63 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.13 c0.04 c0.22 0.12 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.66 0.11 0.48 0.02 0.82 0.25 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 28.4 25.1 33.5 32.1 26.7 12.2 36.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 4.6 0.1 2.2 0.1 10.9 0.1 5.6 Delay (s) 31.2 33.0 25.2 35.8 32.2 37.6 12.3 42.3 Level of Service C C C D C D B D Approach Delay (s) 29.3 34.8 24.5 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 489 172 Future Volume (vph) 489 172 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1486 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1486 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 509 179 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 135 Lane Group Flow (vph) 509 44 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 831 362 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 26.1 22.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.2 Delay (s) 27.5 23.0 Level of Service C C Approach Delay (s) 27.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 280 24 85 630 549 92 82 267 132 82 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 280 24 85 630 549 92 82 267 132 82 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 286 22 87 643 350 94 84 0 135 84 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 76 737 57 139 869 721 124 111 205 145 60 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1728 133 1795 1885 1564 970 867 1598 1795 1264 527 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 0 308 87 643 350 178 0 0 135 0 119 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1861 1795 1885 1564 1837 0 1598 1795 0 1790 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 6.7 2.8 16.5 9.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 6.7 2.8 16.5 9.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 3.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.29 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 76 0 793 139 869 721 235 0 205 0 205 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.39 0.63 0.74 0.49 0.76 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 608 0 1418 608 1436 1192 684 0 851 0 849 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 0.0 11.6 26.4 13.0 11.1 24.9 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 24.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.7 1.8 0.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 2.5 1.1 5.8 2.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.0 0.0 12.1 28.2 14.8 11.8 26.7 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 25.8 LnGrp LOS C A B C B B C A C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 341 1080 178 A 254 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.7 14.9 26.7 26.1 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.0 31.7 10.3 8.1 29.7 11.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 18.5 6.3 4.8 8.7 7.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.8 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 592 85 339 892 0 3 370 0 163 0 1 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 592 85 339 892 0 3 370 0 163 0 1 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2 598 34 342 901 0 375 0 2 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 3 896 390 616 1294 0 527 0 234 0 3 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 12 3664 1594 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1594 0 1885 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 322 278 34 342 901 0 375 0 2 0 1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1885 1791 1594 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1594 0 1885 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 8.0 0.9 8.9 11.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.0 8.0 0.9 8.9 11.9 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 438 390 616 1294 0 527 0 234 0 3 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.64 0.09 0.56 0.70 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1341 1275 1134 1122 2356 0 1496 0 664 0 654 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 19.5 16.8 15.3 16.3 0.0 23.4 0.0 21.0 0.0 28.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 3.0 0.3 3.1 4.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.3 20.6 16.9 15.9 16.8 0.0 24.1 0.0 21.0 0.0 47.1 LnGrp LOS C C B B B A C A C A D Approach Vol, veh/h 634 1243 377 1 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 16.6 24.1 47.1 Approach LOS C B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.9 12.0 18.2 3.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 7.7 11.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.9 0.6 2.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 Cap, veh/h 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 LnGrp LOS A Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 624 131 152 924 307 167 Future Volume (veh/h) 624 131 152 924 307 167 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 643 61 157 953 316 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 1828 814 201 2533 487 223 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.71 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1594 1795 3676 3483 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 643 61 157 953 316 30 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1594 1795 1791 1742 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.5 5.0 6.2 5.0 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.5 5.0 6.2 5.0 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1828 814 201 2533 487 223 V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.07 0.78 0.38 0.65 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3716 1654 1069 6092 2192 1005 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.6 1.2 25.4 3.4 23.9 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.5 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.3 2.1 1.0 2.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.8 1.2 27.9 3.6 25.4 22.4 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 704 1110 346 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.1 7.0 25.1 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 35.0 46.6 12.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 8.3 8.2 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.4 12.5 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.3 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 80 346 87 13 603 0 0 217 9 123 268 199 Future Volume (vph) 80 346 87 13 603 0 0 217 9 123 268 199 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3187 1770 3303 1850 1770 3257 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3187 1770 3303 1850 1770 3257 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 364 92 14 635 0 0 228 9 129 282 209 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 109 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 443 0 14 635 0 0 235 0 129 382 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 39 14 14 19 19 31 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 1 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 33.4 1.1 27.6 15.8 10.5 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 34.4 1.1 28.6 15.8 10.5 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.46 0.01 0.38 0.21 0.14 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 1450 25 1249 386 245 1292 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.14 0.01 c0.19 c0.13 c0.07 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.52 0.31 0.56 0.51 0.61 0.53 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 13.0 37.0 18.1 27.1 30.2 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.39 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 14.8 0.3 2.7 0.9 0.1 Delay (s) 34.2 13.2 66.3 8.4 29.8 31.2 15.7 Level of Service C B E A C C B Approach Delay (s) 16.4 9.6 29.8 18.9 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 89 355 0 138 606 56 7 48 122 0 98 207 Future Volume (vph) 89 355 0 138 606 56 7 48 122 0 98 207 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3421 1816 1523 1626 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3421 1764 1523 1626 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 92 366 0 142 625 58 7 49 126 0 101 213 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 76 0 90 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 92 366 0 142 678 0 0 56 50 0 224 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)8 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 23.4 11.1 27.5 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 23.4 11.1 28.5 31.0 30.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.15 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 1074 254 1289 723 604 666 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.11 c0.08 c0.20 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.34 0.56 0.53 0.08 0.08 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 20.1 30.0 18.3 13.6 14.2 15.3 Progression Factor 1.19 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 42.0 18.2 31.5 18.7 13.6 14.3 15.6 Level of Service D B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 23.0 20.9 14.1 15.6 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 461 146 1 419 834 0 0 0 0 197 113 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 461 146 1 419 834 0 0 0 0 197 113 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 507 0 460 916 0 235 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 0 1960 1297 2898 0 335 176 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.74 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 3619 1900 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 507 0 460 916 0 235 98 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1960 1297 2898 0 335 176 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.26 0.35 0.32 0.00 0.70 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1960 1297 2898 0 869 456 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.3 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 39.6 39.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.5 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 19.6 0.0 8.0 0.2 0.0 40.6 40.1 LnGrp LOS A B A A A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 507 A 1376 352 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.6 2.8 40.3 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.3 39.0 12.7 77.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 * 34 21.6 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 8.1 7.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 4.7 0.7 11.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 19 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 Cap, veh/h 149 Arrive On Green 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 19 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 149 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.6 LnGrp LOS D Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 19.5 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 16 20 168 0 192 8 0 362 91 134 469 Future Vol, veh/h 29 16 20 168 0 192 8 0 362 91 134 469 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 30 16 20 171 0 196 8 0 369 93 137 479 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 12.9 30.2 19.3 14 HCM LOS B D C B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 45% 47% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 67% 25% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 33% 31% 53% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 272 65 360 134 235 235 LT Vol 0 0 29 168 134 0 0 Through Vol 189 181 16 0 0 235 235 RT Vol 0 91 20 192 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 193 278 66 367 137 239 239 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.426 0.594 0.158 0.76 0.295 0.482 0.364 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.948 7.705 8.549 7.445 7.772 7.257 5.474 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 451 466 419 485 462 495 653 Service Time 5.719 5.476 6.329 5.2 5.534 5.019 3.234 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.428 0.597 0.158 0.757 0.297 0.483 0.366 HCM Control Delay 16.5 21.2 12.9 30.2 13.8 16.6 11.4 HCM Lane LOS C C B D B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 2.1 3.8 0.6 6.5 1.2 2.6 1.7 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 391 333 26 417 689 0 0 0 0 164 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 391 333 26 417 689 0 0 0 0 164 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1595 3341 1665 1665 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1595 3341 1665 1665 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) 0 412 351 27 439 725 0 0 0 0 173 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 605 0 0 387 804 0 0 0 0 86 87 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 2 2 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)6 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 19.8 24.7 24.7 7.3 7.3 Effective Green, g (s) 19.8 24.7 24.7 7.3 7.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 968 594 1244 183 183 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.24 0.24 0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.47 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.2 17.2 27.7 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 2.6 1.2 1.9 1.9 Delay (s) 21.3 19.8 18.4 29.6 29.6 Level of Service C B B C C Approach Delay (s) 21.3 18.8 0.0 20.1 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 312 Future Volume (vph) 312 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 328 RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 Lane Group Flow (vph) 313 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type custom Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.1 Effective Green, g (s) 27.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 640 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 14.5 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 Delay (s) 15.1 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 195 388 0 0 698 347 350 0 333 104 0 72 Future Volume (vph) 195 388 0 0 698 347 350 0 333 104 0 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1518 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1518 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 210 417 0 0 751 373 376 0 358 112 0 77 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000272002610068 Lane Group Flow (vph) 210 417 0 0 751 101 0 376 97 112 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 2 2 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 36.8 21.3 21.3 21.1 21.1 9.0 9.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 36.8 21.3 21.3 21.1 21.1 9.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 472 857 943 412 467 417 199 178 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.23 c0.22 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.22 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.49 0.80 0.25 0.81 0.23 0.56 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 30.9 14.3 26.5 22.3 26.7 22.3 32.8 30.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.2 4.4 0.1 9.2 0.1 2.2 0.0 Delay (s) 31.6 14.5 31.0 22.4 36.0 22.4 35.0 30.9 Level of Service C B C C D C D C Approach Delay (s) 20.2 28.1 29.4 33.3 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 201 471 128 70 1100 150 100 120 40 120 120 400 Future Volume (veh/h) 201 471 128 70 1100 150 100 120 40 120 120 400 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 216 506 119 75 1183 161 108 129 43 129 129 430 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 431 1566 366 96 1100 149 98 357 119 193 157 830 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.55 0.55 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2857 668 1781 3142 426 848 1333 444 518 585 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 216 314 311 75 667 677 108 0 172 258 0 430 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1748 1781 1777 1791 848 0 1778 1104 0 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 9.7 9.8 4.2 35.0 35.0 3.1 0.0 7.8 15.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 9.7 9.8 4.2 35.0 35.0 26.8 0.0 7.8 23.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 974 958 96 622 627 98 0 476 350 0 830 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.32 0.32 0.78 1.07 1.08 1.10 0.00 0.36 0.74 0.00 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 431 974 958 143 622 627 98 0 476 382 0 866 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.7 12.4 12.4 46.7 32.5 32.5 49.6 0.0 29.7 38.2 0.0 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.8 0.8 4.5 48.6 50.9 119.6 0.0 0.2 5.2 0.0 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 3.7 3.7 1.9 22.7 23.3 5.7 0.0 3.4 6.6 0.0 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 13.2 13.3 51.2 81.1 83.4 169.2 0.0 29.8 43.4 0.0 16.4 LnGrp LOS C B B D F F F A C D A B Approach Vol, veh/h 841 1419 280 688 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.3 80.6 83.6 26.5 Approach LOS B F F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.2 40.0 30.8 9.4 59.8 30.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 35 29.0 8.0 46.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 37.0 25.7 6.2 11.8 28.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1212 0 1569 318 0 1658 352 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1212 0 1569 318 0 1658 352 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1498 5136 1559 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1498 5136 1559 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1262 0 1634 331 0 1727 367 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 174 0 0 94 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1255 0 1634 157 0 1727 273 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)8 13 13 8 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.3 69.9 71.1 71.1 111.7 111.7 Effective Green, g (s) 29.3 66.3 71.1 71.1 111.7 111.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 677 1243 2434 710 3824 1160 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.45 c0.32 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.74 1.01 0.67 0.22 0.45 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 56.7 41.9 30.4 23.2 7.4 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.58 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 27.8 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 Delay (s)60.4 69.7 27.2 37.1 7.8 6.4 Level of Service E E C D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 67.1 28.9 7.5 Approach LOS A E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.83 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 278 0 376 00001602 506 0 1438 704 Future Volume (vph) 278 0 376 00001602 506 0 1438 704 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.96 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1498 1519 4753 5136 1536 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1498 1519 4753 5136 1536 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) 293 0 396 00001686 533 0 1514 741 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 59 59 00000000161 Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 168 163 00002219 0 0 1514 580 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 4 4 5 14 14 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 117.5 117.5 117.5 Effective Green, g (s) 23.5 23.5 23.5 117.5 117.5 117.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.78 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 266 234 237 3723 4023 1203 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.11 c0.47 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.38 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.72 0.69 0.60 0.38 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 62.1 60.1 59.8 6.6 5.0 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.44 5.78 Incremental Delay, d2 30.3 8.4 6.5 0.6 0.2 1.2 Delay (s) 92.4 68.5 66.2 10.5 7.4 33.9 Level of Service F E E B A C Approach Delay (s) 76.1 0.0 10.5 16.2 Approach LOS EABB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 181 286 214 299 428 184 10 313 1301 124 58 267 Future Volume (veh/h) 181 286 214 299 428 184 10 313 1301 124 58 267 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 193 304 99 318 455 161 333 1384 78 284 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 215 853 363 361 572 200 960 1396 426 972 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3582 1524 3483 2574 902 3483 5147 1569 3483 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 193 304 99 318 315 301 333 1384 78 284 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1524 1742 1791 1684 1742 1716 1569 1742 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.9 10.6 4.5 13.5 24.9 25.4 11.5 40.2 4.5 9.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.9 10.6 4.5 13.5 24.9 25.4 11.5 40.2 4.5 9.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 215 853 363 361 398 374 960 1396 426 972 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.36 0.27 0.88 0.79 0.80 0.35 0.99 0.18 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 455 931 396 488 430 404 960 1396 426 972 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.1 47.6 14.8 66.3 55.1 55.3 43.5 54.5 26.0 42.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.1 22.1 0.9 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 4.8 2.9 6.0 11.3 10.8 5.0 20.0 2.3 4.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.1 47.7 14.9 67.5 55.9 56.2 43.6 76.5 27.0 42.5 LnGrp LOS E D B E E E D E C D Approach Vol, veh/h 596 934 1795 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 59.9 68.3 Approach LOS D E E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.8 45.3 21.4 38.4 45.3 44.8 19.0 40.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.7 38.0 * 36 19.0 40.7 21.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.5 37.1 17.9 27.4 11.6 42.2 15.5 12.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.2 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1176 195 Future Volume (veh/h) 1176 195 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1251 153 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 1396 426 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 5147 1569 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1251 153 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1569 Q Serve(g_s), s 35.1 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 35.1 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1396 426 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1396 426 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.6 25.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.3 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.2 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.9 28.0 LnGrp LOS E C Approach Vol, veh/h 1688 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.5 Approach LOS E Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 67 48 358 152 367 96 205 1633 329 49 184 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 67 48 358 152 367 96 205 1633 329 49 184 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 71 24 268 312 138 216 1719 234 194 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 146 308 104 315 476 391 243 2834 876 220 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.55 0.55 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 389 1219 412 1291 1885 1545 1795 5147 1591 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 0 95 268 312 138 216 1719 234 194 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 389 0 1631 1291 1885 1545 1795 1716 1591 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.7 0.0 6.9 31.0 22.2 11.0 17.7 33.8 11.6 15.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 34.9 0.0 6.9 37.9 22.2 11.0 17.7 33.8 11.6 15.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 0 412 315 476 391 243 2834 876 220 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.23 0.85 0.65 0.35 0.89 0.61 0.27 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 247 0 587 315 476 391 431 2834 876 395 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.8 0.0 44.5 59.6 50.2 46.0 63.8 22.7 17.8 64.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 0.0 0.3 19.6 3.2 0.5 10.8 1.0 0.7 10.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 2.9 11.9 11.0 4.4 8.9 13.9 4.5 8.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 69.0 0.0 44.8 79.2 53.4 46.5 74.5 23.7 18.5 75.6 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D E C B E Approach Vol, veh/h 176 718 2169 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.9 61.7 28.2 Approach LOS E E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.3 85.1 41.6 21.4 87.0 41.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 48.9 36.0 33.0 27.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.7 20.9 39.9 17.9 35.8 36.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 8.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 969 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 969 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1020 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 2563 251 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 4764 466 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 734 386 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1799 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.9 18.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.9 18.9 Prop In Lane 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1846 968 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1846 968 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 20.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 21.6 LnGrp LOS C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1314 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Exisitng PM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 147 505 0 0 987 619 268 501 295 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 147 505 0 0 987 619 268 501 295 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 549 0 0 1073 0 291 545 321 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 226 2070 0 0 1677 559 586 497 Arrive On Green 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1596 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 549 0 0 1073 0 291 545 321 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1596 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 12.0 25.2 15.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 12.0 25.2 15.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 226 2070 0 0 1677 559 586 497 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.52 0.93 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 2070 0 0 1677 579 607 514 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 25.5 30.0 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3 20.1 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 5.0 14.1 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 25.8 50.1 28.8 LnGrp LOS D A A A B C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 709 1073 A 1157 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 19.2 38.1 Approach LOS B B D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 57.0 9.9 47.1 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 6.0 41.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.0 22.5 27.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.7 0.0 9.6 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 Existing AM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) Parking Bus, Adj Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln Adj Flow Rate, veh/h Peak Hour Factor Percent Heavy Veh, % Cap, veh/h Arrive On Green Sat Flow, veh/h Grp Volume(v), veh/h Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln Q Serve(g_s), s Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s Prop In Lane Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h V/C Ratio(X) Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h HCM Platoon Ratio Upstream Filter(I) Uniform Delay (d), s/veh Incr Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh LnGrp LOS Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report Exisitng PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 2: Train & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.0 7.7 3.9 5.3 Vehicles Entered 122 173 9 304 Vehicles Exited 122 173 9 304 Hourly Exit Rate 122 173 9 304 Input Volume 126 170 9 305 % of Volume 97 102 97 100 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.2 3.2 4.1 1.0 2.8 8.1 9.1 6.8 8.1 7.5 6.1 Vehicles Entered 0 5 7 138 1 28 7 129 81 35 197 5 Vehicles Exited 0 5 7 138 1 28 7 129 82 34 198 4 Hourly Exit Rate 0 5 7 138 1 28 7 129 82 34 198 4 Input Volume 1 5 7 139 1 25 9 136 82 38 201 4 % of Volume 0 100 100 99 133 113 76 95 100 90 98 100 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.8 Vehicles Entered 633 Vehicles Exited 633 Hourly Exit Rate 633 Input Volume 648 % of Volume 98 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report Exisitng PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.1 0.6 3.8 5.8 6.2 7.8 5.8 6.3 Vehicles Entered 44 4 76 63 154 236 103 680 Vehicles Exited 44 4 76 63 154 237 104 682 Hourly Exit Rate 44 4 76 63 154 237 104 682 Input Volume 49 4 76 57 156 241 107 690 % of Volume 89 94 100 111 99 98 97 99 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.7 Vehicles Entered 1042 Vehicles Exited 1041 Hourly Exit Rate 1041 Input Volume 2985 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Exisitng PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 2: Train & Scott St Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 82 145 28 Average Queue (ft) 14 38 2 95th Queue (ft) 53 102 15 Link Distance (ft) 8 138 482 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 66 143 152 Average Queue (ft) 10 35 52 72 95th Queue (ft) 35 47 99 118 Link Distance (ft) 516 8 947 1729 Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 21 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 78 115 134 Average Queue (ft) 40 55 74 95th Queue (ft) 64 88 113 Link Distance (ft) 186 939 1415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 29 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 54 465 154 4 31 131 0 0 375 34 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 54 465 154 4 31 131 0 0 375 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1690 3438 3411 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1690 3438 3411 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 61 528 175 5 35 149 0 0 426 39 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 61 348 360 0 0 184 0 0 458 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 52.2 52.2 11.6 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 52.2 52.2 11.6 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 860 882 398 784 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.05 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 40.6 14.5 14.5 41.3 34.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.2 3.2 Delay (s) 42.1 15.9 15.9 42.4 37.4 Level of Service D B B D D Approach Delay (s) 42.1 15.9 42.4 37.4 Approach LOS D B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 543 283 26 129 146 4 386 214 Future Volume (veh/h) 543 283 26 129 146 4 386 214 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 390 402 134 152 402 36 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 454 434 1175 1856 509 217 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.61 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1286 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 390 402 134 152 402 36 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1286 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.3 26.9 2.9 2.0 12.8 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.3 26.9 2.9 2.0 12.8 2.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 454 434 1175 1856 509 217 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.93 0.11 0.08 0.79 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 500 478 1175 1856 1190 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.77 0.77 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 33.9 18.9 7.8 39.9 35.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 20.8 0.0 0.1 9.3 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 11.8 1.0 0.6 5.3 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 54.7 18.9 7.9 49.2 36.8 LnGrp LOS D D B A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 792 286 438 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.6 13.0 48.1 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.6 21.5 66.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 14.8 4.0 28.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.7 0.6 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 187 216 83 202 116 62 35 350 297 403 392 124 Future Volume (vph) 187 216 83 202 116 62 35 350 297 403 392 124 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 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 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2999 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2954 1264 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2999 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2954 1264 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) 197 227 87 213 122 65 37 368 313 424 413 131 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 17 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 86 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 494 0 213 122 7 37 368 313 280 557 45 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 65 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.8 16.8 73.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.8 16.8 73.3 35.7 35.7 35.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 294 159 135 234 468 913 483 1004 429 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.08 c0.08 0.03 c0.13 0.24 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.72 0.77 0.05 0.16 0.79 0.34 0.58 0.55 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 38.5 45.5 45.8 42.3 38.0 42.4 6.3 28.5 28.2 23.7 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 4.5 8.6 19.6 0.2 0.2 8.2 0.2 5.0 2.2 0.5 Delay (s) 43.0 54.1 65.4 42.5 38.2 50.6 6.5 33.5 30.4 24.2 Level of Service D D E D D D A C C C Approach Delay (s) 43.0 55.6 30.7 30.5 Approach LOS D E C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 358 41 241 78 12 10 122 442 42 237 12 Future Volume (vph) 28 358 41 241 78 12 10 122 442 42 237 12 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2764 1413 1449 1481 2224 1465 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 2764 1413 1449 1448 2224 1393 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 385 44 259 84 13 11 131 475 45 255 13 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 0 158 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 449 0 259 89 0 0 142 317 0 311 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 10 10 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.6 16.7 16.7 19.7 39.9 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 26.6 16.7 16.7 19.7 36.4 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.50 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1007 323 331 390 1108 375 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 c0.18 0.06 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.80 0.27 0.36 0.29 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 26.6 23.1 21.6 10.7 25.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 12.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 13.4 Delay (s) 19.0 39.2 23.3 21.8 10.8 38.4 Level of Service B D C C B D Approach Delay (s) 19.0 34.9 13.3 38.4 Approach LOS B C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 187 151 315 172 173 165 40 415 208 647 101 Future Volume (veh/h) 126 187 151 315 172 173 165 40 415 208 647 101 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 229 0 332 181 0 174 42 0 219 681 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 155 326 488 256 204 836 522 1503 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.00 0.30 0.44 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3503 0 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 229 0 332 181 0 174 42 0 219 681 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 0 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 8.0 0.0 11.1 11.6 0.0 10.5 1.0 0.0 10.7 14.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 8.0 0.0 11.1 11.6 0.0 10.5 1.0 0.0 10.7 14.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 155 326 488 256 204 836 522 1503 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.70 0.68 0.71 0.85 0.05 0.42 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 606 611 321 293 836 522 1503 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.9 44.9 0.0 47.1 47.4 0.0 45.3 30.3 0.0 29.3 20.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 1.0 0.0 1.9 4.5 0.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 2.9 0.0 4.7 5.4 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.0 4.3 5.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0 45.8 0.0 49.1 51.9 0.0 56.2 30.3 0.0 29.4 21.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 339 A 513 A 216 A 900 A Approach Delay, s/veh 46.2 50.0 51.2 23.4 Approach LOS D D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.5 50.8 16.5 36.7 30.6 21.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 26.0 22.1 19.1 * 25 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.5 16.6 10.1 12.7 3.0 13.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 331 368 29 160 19 330 481 352 24 123 197 Future Volume (veh/h) 102 331 368 29 160 19 330 481 352 24 123 197 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 356 116 31 172 16 355 517 0 26 132 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16 Cap, veh/h 227 419 347 85 220 20 1380 1419 183 192 150 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1426 1499 1411 131 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1300 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 356 116 31 0 188 355 517 0 26 132 24 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1426 1499 0 1543 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1300 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 21.5 8.1 2.1 0.0 12.3 7.2 10.7 0.0 1.6 8.0 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 21.5 8.1 2.1 0.0 12.3 7.2 10.7 0.0 1.6 8.0 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 419 347 85 0 240 1380 1419 183 192 150 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.85 0.33 0.36 0.00 0.78 0.26 0.36 0.14 0.69 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 206 426 353 144 0 363 1423 1463 353 371 290 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 48.0 40.3 47.7 0.0 42.6 20.3 21.3 0.0 41.8 44.6 41.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 13.2 0.4 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 46.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 18.4 3.0 0.8 0.0 4.9 2.8 4.4 0.0 0.6 3.4 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.4 107.6 40.6 48.7 0.0 45.6 20.6 21.9 0.0 41.9 46.2 42.0 LnGrp LOS D F D D A D C C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 582 219 872 A 182 Approach Delay, s/veh 82.9 46.0 21.4 45.1 Approach LOS F D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 28.8 49.3 17.8 20.9 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 26.0 27.4 11.4 * 25 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 23.5 12.7 8.9 14.3 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 855 19 691 12 10 15 206 228 17 25 440 118 Future Volume (vph) 855 19 691 12 10 15 206 228 17 25 440 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1697 1482 1656 3277 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1697 1482 1656 3277 1626 3252 1455 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) 900 20 727 13 11 16 217 240 18 26 463 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 515 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 93 Lane Group Flow (vph) 459 461 212 0 24 1 217 254 0 26 463 31 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 3.8 3.8 14.3 29.4 2.7 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 3.8 3.8 14.3 29.4 2.7 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.41 0.04 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 476 479 790 90 78 330 1345 61 808 361 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.28 c0.01 c0.13 0.08 0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.96 0.27 0.27 0.01 0.66 0.19 0.43 0.57 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 25.0 19.5 32.6 32.1 26.4 13.5 33.7 23.6 20.7 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 32.0 31.5 0.2 1.6 0.1 4.7 0.1 4.7 1.0 0.1 Delay (s) 57.0 56.4 19.7 34.2 32.2 31.1 13.5 38.4 24.6 20.8 Level of Service E E B C C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 40.3 33.4 21.6 24.4 Approach LOS D C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 745 294 50 280 200 28 15 169 367 315 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 745 294 50 280 200 28 15 169 367 315 21 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 819 313 55 308 91 31 16 0 403 346 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 90 629 240 88 911 768 54 28 453 442 28 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1287 492 1781 1870 1577 1194 616 1585 1781 1739 111 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 0 1132 55 308 91 47 0 0 403 0 368 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1779 1781 1870 1577 1811 0 1585 1781 0 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 45.0 2.8 9.3 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 17.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 45.0 2.8 9.3 2.9 2.3 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 17.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 0 869 88 911 768 82 0 453 0 470 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.00 1.30 0.63 0.34 0.12 0.57 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 869 387 913 770 432 0 541 0 562 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.9 0.0 23.6 43.0 14.5 12.9 43.1 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 32.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 0.0 144.8 2.7 0.3 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 4.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 52.3 1.3 3.7 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 8.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.8 0.0 168.3 45.7 14.8 13.0 45.4 0.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 36.8 LnGrp LOS D A F D B B D A D A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 454 47 A 771 Approach Delay, s/veh 162.4 18.2 45.4 41.9 Approach LOS F B D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 49.4 26.9 8.0 49.5 7.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 11.3 22.1 4.8 47.0 4.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 95.8 HCM 6th LOS F Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 1081 188 108 385 2 134 5 245 0 3 2 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 1081 188 108 385 2 134 5 245 0 3 2 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 1188 167 119 423 2 157 0 20 0 3 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 4 1624 695 325 680 3 351 0 156 0 9 3 Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 Sat Flow, veh/h 9 3638 1557 1781 3720 18 3563 0 1585 0 1342 447 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 639 552 167 119 213 212 157 0 20 0 0 4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1777 1557 1781 1870 1867 1781 0 1585 0 0 1790 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.4 14.3 3.8 3.3 6.0 6.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.4 14.3 3.8 3.3 6.0 6.0 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.25 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 835 793 695 325 342 341 351 0 156 0 0 12 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.70 0.24 0.37 0.62 0.62 0.45 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1341 1274 1117 1122 1178 1176 1496 0 665 0 0 626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.3 12.7 9.8 20.5 21.5 21.5 24.3 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 4.5 1.0 1.3 2.4 2.4 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.4 13.5 9.9 21.0 22.9 22.9 24.6 0.0 23.7 0.0 0.0 34.7 LnGrp LOS B B A C C C C A C A A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1358 544 177 4 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 22.5 24.5 34.7 Approach LOS B C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 9.1 29.6 3.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 4.4 18.4 2.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.3 6.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 953 333 2 84 380 4 123 159 Future Volume (veh/h) 953 333 2 84 380 4 123 159 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 993 242 88 396 128 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2048 888 123 2635 296 136 Arrive On Green 0.58 0.58 0.07 0.74 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1542 1781 3647 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 993 242 88 396 128 26 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1542 1781 1777 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 1.6 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 1.6 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2048 888 123 2635 296 136 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.27 0.71 0.15 0.43 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4164 1806 1198 6826 2456 1127 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.5 0.8 23.7 2.0 22.6 22.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 2.9 0.0 1.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.7 1.1 26.6 2.0 23.6 22.8 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1235 484 154 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 6.5 23.5 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 35.0 43.6 8.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 10.6 3.7 3.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 15.2 4.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 89 457 51 0 321 0 0 184 8 87 130 129 Future Volume (vph) 89 457 51 0 321 0 0 184 8 87 130 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3153 3209 1796 1719 3133 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3153 3209 1796 1719 3133 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) 97 497 55 0 349 0 0 200 9 95 141 140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 87 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 548 0 0 349 0 0 207 0 95 194 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 10 10 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 2% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 33.5 22.8 14.1 7.0 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 34.5 23.8 14.1 7.0 24.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.53 0.36 0.21 0.11 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 183 1655 1162 385 183 1182 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.17 0.11 c0.12 c0.06 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.53 0.33 0.30 0.54 0.52 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 9.0 15.0 22.9 27.8 13.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.0 0.1 Delay (s) 29.3 9.1 6.7 24.4 28.8 13.6 Level of Service C A A C C B Approach Delay (s) 12.1 6.7 24.4 17.5 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 140 413 0 68 306 120 5 115 134 0 27 72 Future Volume (vph) 140 413 0 68 306 120 5 115 134 0 27 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3201 1772 1473 1563 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3201 1764 1473 1563 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 154 454 0 75 336 132 5 126 147 0 30 79 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 92 0 48 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 454 0 75 436 0 0 131 55 0 61 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 5 10 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 23.3 6.5 17.6 24.8 24.8 24.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 23.3 6.5 18.6 25.8 24.8 25.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.35 0.10 0.28 0.39 0.38 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 313 1196 166 906 692 556 613 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.13 0.04 c0.14 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.07 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.38 0.45 0.48 0.19 0.10 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 15.8 27.9 19.5 13.1 13.2 12.6 Progression Factor 0.88 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 21.6 12.1 28.6 19.9 13.2 13.3 12.7 Level of Service C B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 14.5 21.1 13.3 12.7 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 870 360 209 399 0 0 0 0 338 347 171 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 870 360 209 399 0 0 0 0 338 347 171 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 916 0 220 420 0 237 531 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 0 2173 822 2556 0 326 686 291 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 916 0 220 420 0 237 531 59 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 11.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 11.2 12.1 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 11.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 11.2 12.1 2.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2173 822 2556 0 326 686 291 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.27 0.16 0.00 0.73 0.77 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2173 822 2556 0 531 1114 472 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 18.3 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 34.7 35.1 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.8 5.4 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 18.9 0.0 19.1 0.1 0.0 35.9 35.8 31.4 LnGrp LOS A B B A A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 916 A 640 827 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 6.7 35.5 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 43.0 20.8 69.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 * 38 26.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 13.3 14.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 8.9 2.3 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 20 19 143 0 65 5 0 209 143 150 183 Future Vol, veh/h 20 20 19 143 0 65 5 0 209 143 150 183 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 22 22 21 155 0 71 5 0 227 155 163 199 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.7 14.4 13.1 10.5 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 34% 69% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 42% 34% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 58% 32% 31% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 110 248 59 208 150 92 92 LT Vol 0 0 20 143 150 0 0 Through Vol 110 105 20 0 0 92 92 RT Vol 0 143 19 65 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 119 269 64 226 163 99 99 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.216 0.457 0.124 0.423 0.303 0.17 0.121 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.533 6.121 6.943 6.739 6.68 6.171 4.374 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 548 586 514 534 536 580 814 Service Time 4.296 3.884 4.719 4.499 4.439 3.93 2.132 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.217 0.459 0.125 0.423 0.304 0.171 0.122 HCM Control Delay 11.1 14 10.7 14.4 12.3 10.2 7.7 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.8 2.4 0.4 2.1 1.3 0.6 0.4 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 460 318 5 150 382 0 0 0 0 2 242 Future Volume (vph) 0 460 318 5 150 382 0 0 0 0 2 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3135 1535 3226 1603 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3135 1535 3226 1603 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 479 331 5 156 398 0 0 0 0 2 252 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 674 0 0 145 414 0 0 0 0 0 128 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 20.2 20.3 20.3 10.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.2 20.3 20.3 10.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 963 474 996 261 v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.09 c0.13 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.70 0.31 0.42 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.3 18.0 25.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.4 0.3 1.5 Delay (s) 22.4 17.7 18.3 26.5 Level of Service C B B C Approach Delay (s) 22.4 18.1 0.0 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 2 154 Future Volume (vph) 2 154 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1608 1509 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1608 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 2 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 128 75 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% Turn Type NA custom Protected Phases 4 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 30.9 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 30.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 261 709 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 25.0 9.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.1 Delay (s) 26.5 9.8 Level of Service C A Approach Delay (s) 20.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 213 508 0 0 218 116 263 0 286 72 0 52 Future Volume (vph) 213 508 0 0 218 116 263 0 286 72 0 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1468 1671 1472 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1468 1671 1472 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 248 591 0 0 253 135 306 0 333 84 0 60 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000103002090055 Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 591 0 0 253 32 0 306 124 84 0 5 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 31.4 15.3 15.3 16.1 16.1 5.8 5.8 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 31.4 15.3 15.3 16.1 16.1 5.8 5.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.48 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 580 852 789 346 415 365 149 133 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.34 0.08 c0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.18 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.69 0.32 0.09 0.74 0.34 0.56 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 23.6 13.0 20.5 19.3 22.4 20.0 28.3 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 2.0 0.1 0.0 5.8 0.2 2.9 0.0 Delay (s) 24.2 15.0 20.5 19.4 28.2 20.2 31.2 27.0 Level of Service C B C B C C C C Approach Delay (s) 17.7 20.1 24.0 29.4 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 368 973 63 24 541 98 140 103 38 124 68 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 368 973 63 24 541 98 140 103 38 124 68 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 383 1014 62 25 564 87 146 107 40 129 71 93 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 373 1612 99 79 984 151 198 355 133 256 127 795 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3373 206 1767 3055 470 1205 1277 477 683 458 1618 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 383 530 546 25 325 326 146 0 147 200 0 93 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1817 1767 1763 1762 1205 0 1754 1141 0 1618 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.0 25.3 25.3 1.2 13.8 13.9 8.8 0.0 5.9 10.2 0.0 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.0 25.3 25.3 1.2 13.8 13.9 25.0 0.0 5.9 16.2 0.0 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.27 0.64 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 868 79 568 568 198 0 487 383 0 795 V/C Ratio(X) 1.03 0.63 0.63 0.32 0.57 0.57 0.74 0.00 0.30 0.52 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 868 98 568 568 198 0 487 383 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.9 30.4 30.5 41.7 25.3 25.4 41.4 0.0 25.6 30.8 0.0 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 49.4 3.0 2.9 0.7 3.4 3.4 11.8 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.0 12.4 12.8 0.5 6.0 6.1 3.9 0.0 2.5 3.9 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 91.3 33.4 33.3 42.4 28.7 28.8 53.2 0.0 25.7 31.4 0.0 12.5 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCDACCAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1459 676 293 293 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.6 29.2 39.4 25.4 Approach LOS DCDC Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 15.9 18.2 3.2 27.3 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.6 0.0 8.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 706 0 829 321 0 2190 246 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 706 0 829 321 0 2190 246 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1521 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1521 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 0 515 0 728 0 855 331 0 2258 254 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 135 0 0 64 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 515 0 628 0 855 196 0 2258 190 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 15 15 15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.3 39.9 71.1 71.1 89.7 89.7 Effective Green, g (s) 21.3 36.3 71.1 71.1 89.7 89.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.30 0.59 0.59 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 603 834 2983 873 3764 1136 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.23 0.17 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.75 0.29 0.22 0.60 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 47.8 37.8 12.0 11.5 6.9 4.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.53 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 3.5 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.3 Delay (s)58.8 41.3 9.3 6.6 7.6 4.7 Level of Service E D A A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 48.5 8.5 7.4 Approach LOS A D A A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 125 0 139 00001020 573 0 1585 1072 Future Volume (vph) 125 0 139 00001020 573 0 1585 1072 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.91 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1494 1490 4558 5036 1491 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1494 1490 4558 5036 1491 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) 133 0 148 00001085 610 0 1686 1140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 33 00000000171 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 60 57 00001695 0 0 1686 969 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.8 9.8 9.8 101.2 101.2 101.2 Effective Green, g (s) 9.8 9.8 9.8 101.2 101.2 101.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.84 0.84 0.84 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 122 121 3843 4247 1257 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.04 0.37 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.65 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.49 0.47 0.44 0.40 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 52.7 52.6 2.3 2.2 4.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 0.74 9.25 Incremental Delay, d2 15.1 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.2 3.9 Delay (s) 68.9 53.8 53.7 3.4 1.9 42.8 Level of Service E D D A A D Approach Delay (s) 59.0 0.0 3.4 18.4 Approach LOS EAAB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 219 454 186 202 255 120 226 1100 143 11 212 930 Future Volume (vph) 219 454 186 202 255 120 226 1100 143 11 212 930 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1752 3505 1489 3400 3297 3400 5036 1505 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1489 3400 3297 3400 5036 1505 3400 5036 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) 231 478 196 213 268 126 238 1158 151 12 223 979 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 80 0 53 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 478 116 213 341 0 238 1158 86 0 235 979 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 35 35 20 15 20 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 30.8 30.8 10.0 24.6 10.7 51.8 51.8 11.2 51.8 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 30.8 30.8 10.0 24.6 10.7 51.8 51.8 11.2 51.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 899 382 283 675 303 2173 649 317 2173 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.14 0.06 0.10 c0.07 c0.23 0.07 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.53 0.30 0.75 0.50 0.79 0.53 0.13 0.74 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 50.4 38.4 35.9 53.8 42.3 53.5 25.2 20.6 53.0 24.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.07 Incremental Delay, d2 31.2 0.3 0.2 9.6 0.2 11.6 0.9 0.4 7.5 0.6 Delay (s) 81.5 38.7 36.1 63.4 42.5 65.2 26.1 21.0 62.7 26.4 Level of Service F D D E D E C C E C Approach Delay (s) 49.1 49.8 31.6 32.7 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 130 Future Volume (vph) 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1516 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1516 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 137 RTOR Reduction (vph) 65 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.8 Effective Green, g (s) 51.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 654 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 20.3 Progression Factor 1.31 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 26.9 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 53 119 54 239 73 244 25 55 706 263 22 463 Future Volume (veh/h) 53 119 54 239 73 244 25 55 706 263 22 463 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 125 29 164 199 55 58 743 36 487 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 130 317 80 226 372 308 75 2088 644 521 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.41 0.41 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 408 1581 400 1204 1856 1537 1767 5066 1561 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 94 0 116 164 199 55 58 743 36 487 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 792 0 1597 1204 1856 1537 1767 1689 1561 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 7.5 16.3 11.5 3.6 3.9 12.1 1.7 32.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.7 0.0 7.5 23.8 11.5 3.6 3.9 12.1 1.7 32.2 Prop In Lane 0.59 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 207 0 320 226 372 308 75 2088 644 521 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.36 0.73 0.54 0.18 0.77 0.36 0.06 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 352 0 496 226 372 308 265 2088 644 648 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.8 0.0 41.4 51.6 43.0 39.8 56.9 24.3 21.2 41.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.7 11.0 1.5 0.3 15.2 0.5 0.2 18.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 3.1 5.6 5.5 1.4 2.1 4.9 0.6 16.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.4 0.0 42.1 62.7 44.5 40.1 72.0 24.8 21.4 59.6 LnGrp LOS D A D E D D E C C E Approach Vol, veh/h 210 418 837 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.3 51.0 27.9 Approach LOS D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.1 84.2 27.7 38.4 53.9 27.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 53.6 19.0 44.0 27.6 37.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 16.6 25.8 34.2 14.1 19.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 12.8 0.0 1.2 4.4 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1270 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 1270 47 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1337 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 Cap, veh/h 3339 117 Arrive On Green 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, veh/h 5023 177 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 899 485 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1823 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.6 14.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.6 14.6 Prop In Lane 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2244 1211 V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2244 1211 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.2 9.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 5.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 10.2 LnGrp LOS A B Approach Vol, veh/h 1871 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 318 902 0 0 495 266 118 228 478 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 318 902 0 0 495 266 118 228 478 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 328 930 0 0 510 0 122 355 364 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 678 2237 0 0 1343 462 485 411 Arrive On Green 0.39 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 328 930 0 0 510 0 122 355 364 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 4.9 15.6 19.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.9 0.0 4.9 15.6 19.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 678 2237 0 0 1343 462 485 411 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.26 0.73 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 678 2237 0 0 1343 574 603 511 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 26.5 30.5 32.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.4 12.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 2.0 7.1 8.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 30.4 0.0 26.6 32.9 44.8 LnGrp LOS C A A A C C C D Approach Vol, veh/h 1258 510 A 841 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.7 30.4 37.1 Approach LOS A C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 61.7 22.7 39.0 28.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.0 13.0 * 34 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.4 13.9 21.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 11.1 0.3 4.4 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 No Project AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 4: Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.6 6.6 3.7 4.0 Vehicles Entered 169 94 10 273 Vehicles Exited 169 94 10 273 Hourly Exit Rate 169 94 10 273 Input Volume 170 91 10 271 % of Volume 100 103 98 101 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 4.6 8.9 3.0 3.8 3.2 2.7 8.7 10.6 8.6 9.5 6.5 6.0 Vehicles Entered 6 6 15 48 9 31 5 145 116 47 133 4 Vehicles Exited 6 6 15 48 9 30 5 145 116 47 132 4 Hourly Exit Rate 6 6 15 48 9 30 5 145 116 47 132 4 Input Volume 6 6 14 48 6 32 5 156 119 44 131 3 % of Volume 96 96 105 99 150 94 100 93 97 106 101 133 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.6 Vehicles Entered 565 Vehicles Exited 563 Hourly Exit Rate 563 Input Volume 571 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 No Project AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.8 1.0 4.1 6.4 7.1 6.6 4.3 6.2 Vehicles Entered 93 15 68 53 237 139 36 641 Vehicles Exited 93 15 68 53 238 137 36 640 Hourly Exit Rate 93 15 68 53 238 137 36 640 Input Volume 95 17 66 52 248 142 34 654 % of Volume 98 87 103 101 96 97 106 98 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 11.8 Vehicles Entered 964 Vehicles Exited 966 Hourly Exit Rate 966 Input Volume 2712 % of Volume 36 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2024 No Project AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 4: Scott St Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 86 86 32 Average Queue (ft) 40 18 6 95th Queue (ft) 86 61 27 Link Distance (ft) 5 142 1849 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 33 53 187 124 Average Queue (ft) 19 30 65 65 95th Queue (ft) 42 45 129 104 Link Distance (ft) 525 5 1137 1856 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 109 141 107 Average Queue (ft) 47 69 56 95th Queue (ft) 83 111 91 Link Distance (ft) 174 939 1430 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 22 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 85 286 318 3 123 407 0 0 278 97 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 85 286 318 3 123 407 0 0 278 97 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1741 3488 3267 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1741 3488 3267 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 93 314 349 3 135 447 0 0 305 107 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 93 283 383 0 0 582 0 0 331 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 13.4 13.4 12.8 10.6 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 13.4 13.4 12.8 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.21 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 437 466 892 692 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.17 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.65 0.82 0.65 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 14.7 16.2 17.2 16.6 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 7.2 15.0 1.9 0.5 Delay (s) 15.1 23.4 32.2 18.5 17.8 Level of Service B C C B B Approach Delay (s) 15.1 28.5 18.5 17.8 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 357 223 20 308 347 4 833 437 Future Volume (veh/h) 357 223 20 308 347 4 833 437 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 237 247 328 369 886 171 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 310 285 1074 2258 1009 447 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.72 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1578 1449 3061 3230 3230 1393 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 237 247 328 369 886 171 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1393 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 16.5 7.8 3.8 26.6 9.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 16.5 7.8 3.8 26.6 9.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 285 1074 2258 1009 447 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.87 0.31 0.16 0.88 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 521 478 1074 2258 1240 549 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.46 0.46 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 38.9 23.6 4.5 32.1 26.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 4.1 0.1 0.1 5.4 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 6.2 2.7 1.0 10.5 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.4 43.0 23.6 4.7 37.5 27.5 LnGrp LOS D D C A D C Approach Vol, veh/h 484 697 1057 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.3 13.6 35.9 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.7 36.7 76.4 23.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 28.6 5.8 18.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.4 1.5 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 162 54 85 677 248 247 59 483 128 115 475 109 Future Volume (vph) 162 54 85 677 248 247 59 483 128 115 475 109 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2893 3060 1660 1383 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1309 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2893 3060 1660 1383 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1309 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) 167 56 88 698 256 255 61 498 132 119 490 112 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 37 0 0 0 185 0 0 0 0 0 87 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 274 0 698 256 70 61 498 132 79 530 25 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 80 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.4 33.0 33.0 33.0 21.5 21.5 90.7 26.4 26.4 26.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.4 33.0 33.0 33.0 21.5 21.5 90.7 26.4 26.4 26.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.76 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 491 841 456 380 277 554 1046 309 649 287 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.23 0.15 0.04 c0.16 0.10 0.06 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.83 0.56 0.18 0.22 0.90 0.13 0.26 0.82 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 40.9 37.3 33.2 42.1 48.2 4.0 38.7 44.5 37.2 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 0.8 6.8 1.6 0.2 0.3 17.2 0.0 2.0 10.9 0.6 Delay (s) 46.5 47.7 38.9 33.5 42.4 65.4 4.0 40.7 55.4 37.8 Level of Service D D D C D E A D E D Approach Delay (s) 46.5 42.8 51.6 51.1 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 32 177 35 367 248 24 18 196 426 38 244 43 Future Volume (vph) 32 177 35 367 248 24 18 196 426 38 244 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 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 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2724 1413 1461 1481 2224 1438 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 2724 1413 1461 1423 2224 1363 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 190 38 395 267 26 19 211 458 41 262 46 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 198 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 247 0 395 289 0 0 230 260 0 343 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 10 10 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.9 27.3 27.3 23.8 54.6 23.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.9 27.3 27.3 23.8 51.1 23.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.57 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 874 428 443 376 1262 360 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.28 0.20 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.92 0.65 0.61 0.21 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 30.3 27.2 29.0 9.5 32.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 25.0 2.6 2.1 0.0 34.9 Delay (s) 23.6 55.4 29.8 31.1 9.6 67.4 Level of Service C E C C A E Approach Delay (s) 23.6 44.5 16.8 67.4 Approach LOS C D B E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 169 174 206 780 230 388 104 15 269 163 849 134 Future Volume (veh/h) 169 174 206 780 230 388 104 15 269 163 849 134 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 202 149 0 821 242 0 109 16 0 172 894 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 398 209 890 467 143 821 372 1363 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.21 0.39 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3450 1811 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 202 149 0 821 242 0 109 16 0 172 894 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 9.5 0.0 27.8 13.7 0.0 8.0 0.4 0.0 10.2 25.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 9.5 0.0 27.8 13.7 0.0 8.0 0.4 0.0 10.2 25.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 398 209 890 467 143 821 372 1363 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.71 0.92 0.52 0.76 0.02 0.46 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 635 334 914 480 160 821 372 1363 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.9 51.2 0.0 43.3 38.1 0.0 53.4 33.2 0.0 41.4 30.3 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 1.6 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 4.4 0.0 12.6 6.2 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.0 4.7 10.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.2 52.7 0.0 49.4 38.4 0.0 68.3 33.3 0.0 44.2 32.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 351 A 1063 A 125 A 1066 A Approach Delay, s/veh 51.3 46.9 63.8 33.9 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 51.3 18.4 30.2 35.8 35.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 36.0 22.1 17.1 * 31 31.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.0 27.0 11.5 12.2 2.4 29.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.1 0.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 54 108 392 63 384 16 487 208 66 6 204 563 Future Volume (veh/h) 54 108 392 63 384 16 487 208 66 6 204 563 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 57 134 128 67 409 13 518 221 0 6 217 413 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 131 450 392 141 469 15 844 868 391 410 327 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1482 1725 1743 55 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1469 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 57 134 128 67 0 422 518 221 0 6 217 413 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1482 1725 0 1799 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1469 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 6.4 7.5 3.9 0.0 24.0 14.4 5.4 0.0 0.3 10.9 23.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 6.4 7.5 3.9 0.0 24.0 14.4 5.4 0.0 0.3 10.9 23.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 131 450 392 141 0 484 844 868 391 410 327 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.30 0.33 0.48 0.00 0.87 0.61 0.25 0.02 0.53 1.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 492 409 182 0 497 897 922 391 410 327 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.3 32.9 31.1 46.1 0.0 36.7 34.3 30.9 0.0 31.8 35.9 40.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.0 14.7 3.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 140.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 5.3 2.6 1.7 0.0 12.1 6.1 2.3 0.0 0.1 4.9 21.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 41.7 31.4 47.0 0.0 51.3 37.4 31.5 0.0 31.8 36.6 180.8 LnGrp LOS D D C D A D D C C D F Approach Vol, veh/h 319 489 739 A 636 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.5 50.7 35.6 130.2 Approach LOS D D D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 30.7 33.4 12.1 31.2 28.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.1 29.0 23.4 11.1 29.0 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.9 9.5 16.4 5.4 26.0 25.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.0 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 404 24 287 33 44 29 5 373 355 45 12 20 Future Volume (vph) 404 24 287 33 44 29 5 373 355 45 12 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1630 2682 1755 1479 1703 3314 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1630 2682 1755 1479 1703 3314 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 421 25 299 34 46 30 5 389 370 47 12 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 236 0 0 27 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 215 231 63 0 80 3 0 394 410 0 0 34 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 20 30 30 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 16.5 16.5 7.3 7.3 20.7 35.4 4.4 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 16.5 16.5 7.3 7.3 20.7 35.4 4.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.09 0.26 0.45 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 340 343 564 163 137 449 1496 95 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.14 c0.05 c0.23 0.12 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.67 0.11 0.49 0.02 0.88 0.27 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 28.5 25.0 33.8 32.3 27.6 13.5 35.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 5.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 17.3 0.1 2.3 Delay (s) 32.0 33.6 25.1 36.1 32.4 44.9 13.6 37.9 Level of Service C C C D C D B D Approach Delay (s) 29.7 35.1 28.8 Approach LOS C D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 518 182 Future Volume (vph) 518 182 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1482 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1482 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 540 190 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 144 Lane Group Flow (vph) 540 46 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 19.1 Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 19.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 829 361 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 23.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 Delay (s) 28.5 23.3 Level of Service C C Approach Delay (s) 27.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 34 296 24 85 666 580 93 87 172 140 87 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 34 296 24 85 666 580 93 87 172 140 87 58 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 302 22 87 680 382 95 89 0 143 89 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 78 768 56 133 892 738 124 116 210 146 64 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1736 126 1795 1885 1559 949 889 1598 1795 1243 545 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 0 324 87 680 382 184 0 0 143 0 128 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1862 1795 1885 1559 1838 0 1598 1795 0 1787 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 7.5 3.0 18.9 10.9 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 7.5 3.0 18.9 10.9 6.2 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.30 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 0 824 133 892 738 240 0 210 0 209 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.39 0.65 0.76 0.52 0.77 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.61 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 564 0 1317 564 1333 1103 635 0 790 0 786 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 0.0 12.0 28.7 13.8 11.7 26.7 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.4 2.0 2.0 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 2.8 1.3 6.9 3.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.2 0.0 12.4 30.7 15.9 12.5 28.7 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 27.8 LnGrp LOS C A B C B B C A C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 359 1149 184 A 271 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 15.9 28.7 28.1 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 34.6 11.0 8.2 32.7 11.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 20.9 6.9 5.0 9.5 8.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.2 0.7 0.1 3.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 626 90 359 943 0 392 0 173 0 2 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 626 90 359 943 0 392 0 173 0 2 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 632 39 363 953 0 400 0 9 0 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 4 927 402 625 1311 0 560 0 247 0 6 3 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 17 3659 1588 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1582 0 1179 589 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 341 294 39 363 953 0 400 0 9 0 0 3 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1884 1791 1588 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1582 0 0 1768 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 9.4 1.2 10.6 14.1 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 9.4 1.2 10.6 14.1 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 478 454 402 625 1311 0 560 0 247 0 0 9 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.65 0.10 0.58 0.73 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1210 1150 1020 1012 2126 0 1350 0 595 0 0 554 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.7 21.3 18.2 17.0 18.2 0.0 25.6 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 31.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 3.6 0.4 3.9 5.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.2 22.5 18.3 17.7 18.8 0.0 26.2 0.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 40.4 LnGrp LOS C C B B B A C A C A A D Approach Vol, veh/h 674 1316 409 3 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.6 18.5 26.2 40.4 Approach LOS C B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.3 13.5 20.3 3.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.1 8.8 12.5 2.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.1 0.7 3.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 655 138 153 924 322 176 Future Volume (veh/h) 655 138 153 924 322 176 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 675 68 158 953 332 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 1813 805 202 2517 506 232 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.70 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1590 1795 3676 3483 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 675 68 158 953 332 39 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1590 1795 1791 1742 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.5 5.1 6.4 5.3 1.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.5 5.1 6.4 5.3 1.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1813 805 202 2517 506 232 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.08 0.78 0.38 0.66 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3686 1636 1060 6043 2174 997 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.9 1.2 25.6 3.6 23.9 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.4 2.1 1.1 2.1 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.1 1.3 28.1 3.7 25.4 22.5 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 743 1111 371 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 7.2 25.1 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 35.0 46.7 12.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 8.8 8.4 7.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.9 12.5 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 84 362 92 14 603 0 0 228 10 129 281 209 Future Volume (vph) 84 362 92 14 603 0 0 228 10 129 281 209 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3184 1770 3303 1849 1770 3247 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3184 1770 3303 1849 1770 3247 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 88 381 97 15 635 0 0 240 11 136 296 220 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 107 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 464 0 15 635 0 0 249 0 136 409 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 45 15 15 20 20 35 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 34.0 1.0 27.9 16.6 10.9 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 35.0 1.0 28.9 16.6 10.9 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.45 0.01 0.37 0.21 0.14 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 162 1441 22 1234 397 249 1310 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.15 0.01 c0.19 c0.13 c0.08 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.54 0.32 0.68 0.51 0.63 0.55 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 33.6 13.6 38.0 18.8 27.5 30.9 15.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.40 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.1 48.6 0.3 3.1 1.3 0.1 Delay (s) 35.5 13.7 101.7 8.9 30.6 32.2 15.9 Level of Service D B F A C C B Approach Delay (s) 17.1 11.1 30.6 19.3 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 94 373 0 145 607 59 8 51 129 0 103 210 Future Volume (vph) 94 373 0 145 607 59 8 51 129 0 103 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3417 1815 1517 1627 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3417 1757 1517 1627 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 97 385 0 149 626 61 8 53 133 0 106 216 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 79 0 85 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 97 385 0 149 682 0 0 61 54 0 237 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.2 23.4 11.6 27.8 31.2 31.2 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.2 23.4 11.6 28.8 32.2 31.2 32.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.15 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 1050 260 1273 731 612 677 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.11 c0.09 c0.20 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.37 0.57 0.54 0.08 0.09 0.35 Uniform Delay, d1 33.7 21.1 30.5 19.0 13.6 14.3 15.4 Progression Factor 1.20 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.2 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 44.7 19.0 32.4 19.4 13.7 14.3 15.7 Level of Service D B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 24.2 21.8 14.1 15.7 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 480 153 437 869 0 0 0 0 198 118 271 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 480 153 437 869 0 0 0 0 198 118 271 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 527 0 480 955 0 238 101 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 0 1960 1293 2894 0 340 178 151 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.74 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 3619 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 527 0 480 955 0 238 101 31 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.3 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.6 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.3 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 4.6 1.6 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1960 1293 2894 0 340 178 151 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.27 0.37 0.33 0.00 0.70 0.57 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1960 1293 2894 0 869 456 386 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.4 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 39.6 39.0 37.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 2.5 2.1 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 19.7 0.0 8.1 0.2 0.0 40.5 40.1 37.9 LnGrp LOS A B A A A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 527 A 1435 370 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.7 2.9 40.2 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.2 39.0 12.8 77.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 * 34 21.6 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.5 8.3 7.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 4.9 0.7 12.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 22.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 29 17 20 177 0 202 9 0 380 96 141 492 Future Vol, veh/h 29 17 20 177 0 202 9 0 380 96 141 492 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 30 17 20 181 0 206 9 0 388 98 144 502 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 13.4 36.5 21.6 15 HCM LOS B E C B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 44% 47% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 66% 26% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 34% 30% 53% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 199 286 66 379 141 246 246 LT Vol 0 0 29 177 141 0 0 Through Vol 199 190 17 0 0 246 246 RT Vol 0 96 20 202 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 203 292 67 387 144 251 251 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.462 0.644 0.165 0.818 0.319 0.52 0.396 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.182 7.938 8.823 7.617 7.979 7.463 5.675 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 439 452 405 476 449 482 630 Service Time 5.963 5.719 6.615 5.38 5.748 5.232 3.443 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.462 0.646 0.165 0.813 0.321 0.521 0.398 HCM Control Delay 17.9 24.1 13.4 36.5 14.5 18.1 12.2 HCM Lane LOS C C B E B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 2.4 4.4 0.6 7.8 1.4 2.9 1.9 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 405 345 27 418 689 0 0 0 0 170 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 405 345 27 418 689 0 0 0 0 170 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3236 1595 3340 1665 1665 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3236 1595 3340 1665 1665 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) 0 426 363 28 440 725 0 0 0 0 179 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 634 0 0 384 809 0 0 0 0 89 90 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 24.6 24.6 7.4 7.4 Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 24.6 24.6 7.4 7.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 990 585 1226 183 183 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.24 c0.24 0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.49 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 20.1 17.7 17.7 28.0 28.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.1 Delay (s) 21.4 20.3 19.0 30.0 30.1 Level of Service C C B C C Approach Delay (s) 21.4 19.4 0.0 20.2 Approach LOS C B A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 324 Future Volume (vph) 324 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 341 RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type custom Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.9 Effective Green, g (s) 27.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 652 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 14.4 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 Delay (s) 15.0 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 204 388 0 0 698 362 366 0 348 104 0 73 Future Volume (vph) 204 388 0 0 698 362 366 0 348 104 0 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1509 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1509 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 219 417 0 0 751 389 394 0 374 112 0 78 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000284002550069 Lane Group Flow (vph) 219 417 0 0 751 105 0 394 119 112 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 37.4 21.6 21.6 22.4 22.4 9.1 9.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 37.4 21.6 21.6 22.4 22.4 9.1 9.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.47 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 473 849 932 405 483 432 196 175 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.23 c0.22 c0.06 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.23 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.49 0.81 0.26 0.82 0.28 0.57 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 14.9 27.4 23.1 27.1 22.7 33.8 31.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.2 4.9 0.1 9.7 0.1 2.5 0.0 Delay (s) 32.5 15.1 32.3 23.2 36.8 22.8 36.3 31.8 Level of Service C B C C D C D C Approach Delay (s) 21.1 29.2 30.0 34.5 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 209 490 128 70 1143 156 100 125 42 125 125 416 Future Volume (veh/h) 209 490 128 70 1143 156 100 125 42 125 125 416 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 527 119 75 1229 168 108 134 45 134 134 447 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 416 1554 349 96 1099 150 95 367 123 197 159 829 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.54 0.54 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2881 648 1781 3140 427 831 1329 446 516 575 1605 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 324 322 75 693 704 108 0 179 268 0 447 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1752 1781 1777 1790 831 0 1776 1091 0 1605 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.1 10.3 10.4 4.2 35.0 35.0 2.8 0.0 8.1 16.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.1 10.3 10.4 4.2 35.0 35.0 27.6 0.0 8.1 24.8 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 416 959 945 96 622 626 95 0 491 355 0 829 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.34 0.34 0.78 1.11 1.12 1.13 0.00 0.36 0.75 0.00 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 416 959 945 143 622 626 95 0 491 375 0 850 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.6 13.0 13.0 46.7 32.5 32.5 49.7 0.0 29.1 38.1 0.0 16.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.9 0.9 4.9 65.1 68.6 132.5 0.0 0.2 6.5 0.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 4.0 4.0 1.9 25.5 26.3 5.9 0.0 3.5 7.0 0.0 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.3 13.8 13.9 51.7 97.6 101.1 182.2 0.0 29.3 44.6 0.0 16.8 LnGrp LOS C B B D F F F A C D A B Approach Vol, veh/h 871 1472 287 715 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.2 96.9 86.8 27.2 Approach LOS B F F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.4 40.0 31.6 9.4 59.0 31.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 35 29.0 8.0 46.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 37.0 26.8 6.2 12.4 29.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 6.1 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 60.9 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1213 0 1626 330 0 1719 365 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1213 0 1626 330 0 1719 365 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1264 0 1694 344 0 1791 380 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 181 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1257 0 1694 163 0 1791 283 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.3 69.9 71.1 71.1 111.7 111.7 Effective Green, g (s) 29.3 66.3 71.1 71.1 111.7 111.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.74 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 677 1243 2434 704 3824 1159 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.45 c0.33 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.74 1.01 0.70 0.23 0.47 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 56.7 41.9 31.0 23.3 7.5 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.89 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 28.4 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 Delay (s)60.4 70.2 27.9 44.7 7.9 6.5 Level of Service E E C D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 67.5 30.8 7.7 Approach LOS A E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 290 0 391 00001666 527 0 1496 733 Future Volume (vph) 290 0 391 00001666 527 0 1496 733 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.88 0.85 0.96 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1497 1519 4752 5136 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1497 1519 4752 5136 1553 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) 305 0 412 00001754 555 0 1575 772 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 51 51 00000000171 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 185 180 00002309 0 0 1575 601 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 10 15 15 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 24.3 24.3 116.7 116.7 116.7 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 24.3 24.3 116.7 116.7 116.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.78 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 275 242 246 3697 3995 1208 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.12 c0.49 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.76 0.73 0.62 0.39 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 61.8 60.1 59.7 7.2 5.3 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.90 1.41 5.56 Incremental Delay, d2 30.7 12.1 9.2 0.7 0.3 1.3 Delay (s) 92.4 72.2 69.0 14.3 7.8 34.8 Level of Service F E E B A C Approach Delay (s) 78.2 0.0 14.3 16.7 Approach LOS EABB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 189 298 223 299 445 192 315 1352 124 61 278 1222 Future Volume (veh/h) 189 298 223 299 445 192 315 1352 124 61 278 1222 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 201 317 113 318 473 170 335 1438 72 296 1300 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 228 897 380 372 589 210 906 1396 424 918 1396 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3582 1516 3483 2557 911 3483 5147 1562 3483 5147 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 201 317 113 318 330 313 335 1438 72 296 1300 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1516 1742 1791 1677 1742 1716 1562 1742 1716 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.5 10.9 5.2 13.5 26.1 26.5 11.8 40.7 4.1 10.3 36.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.5 10.9 5.2 13.5 26.1 26.5 11.8 40.7 4.1 10.3 36.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 897 380 372 413 386 906 1396 424 918 1396 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.35 0.30 0.86 0.80 0.81 0.37 1.03 0.17 0.32 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 455 931 394 488 430 403 906 1396 424 918 1396 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.4 46.2 15.1 65.9 54.5 54.6 45.4 54.6 25.7 44.5 53.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.0 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.3 32.0 0.9 0.2 12.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.2 4.9 3.4 6.0 11.8 11.3 5.2 21.5 2.1 4.5 17.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.4 46.4 15.5 67.0 55.4 55.8 45.7 86.7 26.5 44.7 65.7 LnGrp LOS E D B E E E D F C D E Approach Vol, veh/h 631 961 1845 1752 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.8 59.4 76.9 58.7 Approach LOS D E E E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.5 45.3 22.5 39.7 43.0 44.8 19.5 42.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 40.7 38.0 * 36 19.0 40.7 21.0 39.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 38.9 18.5 28.5 12.3 42.7 15.5 12.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 1.4 0.5 2.3 0.6 0.0 0.5 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.2 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 203 Future Volume (veh/h) 203 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 156 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 Cap, veh/h 424 Arrive On Green 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1562 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 156 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1562 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 424 V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 424 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.5 LnGrp LOS C Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 81 71 51 375 160 384 97 206 1709 345 52 193 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 71 51 375 160 384 97 206 1709 345 52 193 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 75 27 282 327 156 217 1799 251 203 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 150 318 114 325 501 408 244 2741 846 229 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.53 0.53 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 383 1196 430 1281 1885 1537 1795 5147 1589 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 0 102 282 327 156 217 1799 251 203 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 383 0 1626 1281 1885 1537 1795 1716 1589 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 7.4 32.5 23.1 12.4 17.8 37.7 13.2 16.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 36.8 0.0 7.4 39.9 23.1 12.4 17.8 37.7 13.2 16.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 150 0 432 325 501 408 244 2741 846 229 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.24 0.87 0.65 0.38 0.89 0.66 0.30 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 0 585 325 501 408 431 2741 846 395 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.3 0.0 43.1 59.0 48.9 45.0 63.7 25.2 19.5 64.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 0.0 0.3 21.0 3.0 0.6 10.9 1.2 0.9 11.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 0.0 3.1 12.7 11.4 4.9 8.9 15.6 5.2 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.6 0.0 43.4 80.0 51.9 45.6 74.6 26.4 20.4 76.2 LnGrp LOS E A D F D D E C C E Approach Vol, veh/h 187 765 2267 Approach Delay, s/veh 54.9 61.0 30.4 Approach LOS D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 83.1 43.6 22.1 84.3 43.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 48.9 36.0 33.0 27.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.8 22.7 41.9 18.7 39.7 38.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 9.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1014 106 Future Volume (veh/h) 1014 106 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1067 106 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 2495 248 Arrive On Green 0.52 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 4756 472 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 769 404 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1797 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.6 20.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.6 20.7 Prop In Lane 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1800 943 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1800 943 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.9 21.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.6 9.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.6 23.3 LnGrp LOS C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1376 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project PM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 148 528 0 0 1032 648 281 524 309 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 148 528 0 0 1032 648 281 524 309 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 574 0 0 1122 0 305 570 336 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 228 2038 0 0 1645 574 603 508 Arrive On Green 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1590 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 574 0 0 1122 0 305 570 336 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1590 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 12.5 26.5 16.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 12.5 26.5 16.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 2038 0 0 1645 574 603 508 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.53 0.95 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 2038 0 0 1645 579 607 512 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 25.1 29.8 26.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 23.5 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 5.2 15.3 6.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 20.3 0.0 25.5 53.3 28.9 LnGrp LOS D A A A C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 735 1122 A 1211 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 20.3 39.5 Approach LOS B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 56.2 9.9 46.3 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 6.0 41.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.0 24.2 28.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.0 0.0 9.4 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 No Project AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 No Project PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 2: Train & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.2 8.5 3.7 5.7 Vehicles Entered 134 185 11 330 Vehicles Exited 134 185 11 330 Hourly Exit Rate 134 185 11 330 Input Volume 137 183 9 329 % of Volume 98 101 119 100 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.5 9.2 3.9 4.2 3.0 10.4 10.0 7.6 9.4 8.1 5.0 Vehicles Entered 2 6 8 151 0 27 9 146 86 42 208 6 Vehicles Exited 2 6 8 151 0 28 9 147 86 41 208 6 Hourly Exit Rate 2 6 8 151 0 28 9 147 86 41 208 6 Input Volume 2 6 8 150 0 27 10 147 89 41 205 5 % of Volume 100 100 97 100 0 105 88 100 97 100 101 120 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.4 Vehicles Entered 691 Vehicles Exited 692 Hourly Exit Rate 692 Input Volume 691 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 No Project PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.6 0.5 3.9 6.1 6.4 8.3 6.1 6.6 Vehicles Entered 46 12 80 64 172 243 112 729 Vehicles Exited 46 12 80 64 172 242 112 728 Hourly Exit Rate 46 12 80 64 172 242 112 728 Input Volume 49 10 81 61 166 245 114 727 % of Volume 93 114 98 105 104 99 98 100 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.5 Vehicles Entered 1131 Vehicles Exited 1130 Hourly Exit Rate 1130 Input Volume 3163 % of Volume 36 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2024 No Project PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 2: Train & Scott St Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 84 142 22 Average Queue (ft) 16 42 2 95th Queue (ft) 56 103 13 Link Distance (ft) 8 138 482 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 31 65 139 170 Average Queue (ft) 13 36 59 78 95th Queue (ft) 37 51 106 129 Link Distance (ft) 516 8 947 1729 Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 84 125 153 Average Queue (ft) 42 59 78 95th Queue (ft) 69 93 127 Link Distance (ft) 186 939 1415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 35 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 55 475 160 5 35 135 0 0 365 55 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 55 475 160 5 35 135 0 0 365 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1690 3436 3376 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1690 3436 3376 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 62 540 182 6 40 153 0 0 415 62 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 63 362 366 0 0 193 0 0 466 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 51.7 51.7 12.1 23.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.1 51.7 51.7 12.1 23.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 191 852 873 415 776 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.06 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.42 0.42 0.47 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 40.2 14.9 14.9 40.9 34.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.1 3.4 Delay (s) 41.6 16.5 16.4 42.1 37.8 Level of Service D B B D D Approach Delay (s) 41.6 16.4 42.1 37.8 Approach LOS D B D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 555 275 30 135 175 5 380 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 555 275 30 135 175 5 380 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 391 405 141 182 396 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 456 437 1175 1851 503 214 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.61 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1286 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 391 405 141 182 396 37 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1286 Q Serve(g_s), s 24.3 27.1 3.0 2.5 12.6 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.3 27.1 3.0 2.5 12.6 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 456 437 1175 1851 503 214 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.93 0.12 0.10 0.79 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 500 478 1175 1851 1190 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.76 0.76 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.9 33.9 18.9 8.0 40.0 35.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 21.0 0.0 0.1 9.2 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 11.9 1.0 0.8 5.2 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.9 54.8 18.9 8.1 49.1 37.1 LnGrp LOS D D B A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 796 323 433 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.5 12.8 48.1 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.6 21.3 65.9 34.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 14.6 4.5 29.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.7 0.7 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.5 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 195 215 80 210 115 65 40 355 330 405 385 130 Future Volume (vph) 195 215 80 210 115 65 40 355 330 405 385 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 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 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3002 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2954 1264 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3002 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2954 1264 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) 205 226 84 221 121 68 42 374 347 426 405 137 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 91 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 499 0 221 121 7 42 374 347 281 550 46 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 65 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.9 16.9 73.3 35.6 35.6 35.6 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.9 16.9 73.3 35.6 35.6 35.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.34 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 294 159 135 235 471 913 481 1001 428 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.08 c0.08 0.03 c0.13 0.26 c0.20 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.75 0.76 0.05 0.18 0.79 0.38 0.58 0.55 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 38.6 45.7 45.7 42.3 38.1 42.4 6.5 28.6 28.2 23.8 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 4.8 10.3 19.1 0.2 0.3 8.7 0.2 5.1 2.2 0.5 Delay (s) 43.4 56.0 64.8 42.5 38.3 51.1 6.7 33.7 30.4 24.3 Level of Service D E E D D D A C C C Approach Delay (s) 43.4 56.4 30.2 30.5 Approach LOS D E C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 35 360 45 245 80 20 15 135 445 45 265 15 Future Volume (vph) 35 360 45 245 80 20 15 135 445 45 265 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2759 1413 1430 1480 2224 1464 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 2759 1413 1430 1435 2224 1390 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 387 48 263 86 22 16 145 478 48 285 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 13 0 0 0 152 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 462 0 263 95 0 0 161 326 0 347 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 10 10 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.6 16.8 16.8 20.6 40.9 20.6 Effective Green, g (s) 25.6 16.8 16.8 20.6 37.4 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.23 0.23 0.28 0.51 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 967 325 329 404 1139 392 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.19 0.07 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 c0.25 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.81 0.29 0.40 0.29 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 26.6 23.2 21.2 10.2 25.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 13.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 20.0 Delay (s) 20.2 39.6 23.3 21.4 10.2 45.0 Level of Service C D C C B D Approach Delay (s) 20.2 34.9 13.0 45.0 Approach LOS C C B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 215 150 315 195 175 190 45 400 210 650 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 155 215 150 315 195 175 190 45 400 210 650 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 130 273 0 332 205 0 200 47 0 221 684 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 175 367 518 272 230 711 544 1368 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.13 0.21 0.00 0.32 0.40 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3503 0 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 130 273 0 332 205 0 200 47 0 221 684 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 0 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.6 9.6 0.0 11.1 13.1 0.0 12.0 1.2 0.0 10.6 15.7 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 9.6 0.0 11.1 13.1 0.0 12.0 1.2 0.0 10.6 15.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 175 367 518 272 230 711 544 1368 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.74 0.64 0.75 0.87 0.07 0.41 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289 606 611 321 293 809 544 1368 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.86 0.86 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.2 44.2 0.0 46.5 47.4 0.0 44.5 33.4 0.0 28.2 23.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 7.1 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 3.5 0.0 4.7 6.2 0.0 6.1 0.5 0.0 4.3 6.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.2 45.1 0.0 48.0 54.5 0.0 61.2 33.4 0.0 28.4 24.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 403 A 537 A 247 A 905 A Approach Delay, s/veh 45.5 50.5 55.9 25.6 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.1 46.6 18.0 38.0 26.8 22.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 26.0 22.1 19.1 * 25 20.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 17.7 11.6 12.6 3.2 15.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.4 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 105 340 370 30 165 20 330 485 355 25 125 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 105 340 370 30 165 20 330 485 355 25 125 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 366 118 32 177 18 355 522 0 27 134 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16 Cap, veh/h 227 423 351 87 223 23 1361 1400 186 195 152 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1426 1499 1398 142 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1301 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 366 118 32 0 195 355 522 0 27 134 43 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1426 1499 0 1540 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1301 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 22.1 8.2 2.2 0.0 12.8 7.3 10.9 0.0 1.6 8.1 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 22.1 8.2 2.2 0.0 12.8 7.3 10.9 0.0 1.6 8.1 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 423 351 87 0 246 1361 1400 186 195 152 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.86 0.34 0.37 0.00 0.79 0.26 0.37 0.15 0.69 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 208 426 353 144 0 362 1399 1439 353 371 290 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 48.1 40.2 47.6 0.0 42.5 20.7 21.8 0.0 41.6 44.5 42.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 14.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 4.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 50.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 19.3 3.1 0.8 0.0 5.1 2.9 4.5 0.0 0.6 3.4 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.6 112.7 40.5 48.6 0.0 46.5 21.0 22.3 0.0 41.8 46.1 42.7 LnGrp LOS D F D D A D C C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 597 227 877 A 204 Approach Delay, s/veh 86.1 46.8 21.8 44.8 Approach LOS F D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 29.2 48.5 17.9 21.4 17.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.1 26.0 27.4 11.4 * 25 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 24.1 12.9 9.1 14.8 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 2.9 0.0 0.5 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.4 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 850 20 690 15 15 20 210 235 20 30 440 120 Future Volume (vph) 850 20 690 15 15 20 210 235 20 30 440 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1701 1482 1656 3273 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1701 1482 1656 3273 1626 3252 1455 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) 895 21 726 16 16 21 221 247 21 32 463 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 516 0 0 20 0 5 0 0 0 95 Lane Group Flow (vph) 456 460 210 0 32 1 221 263 0 32 463 31 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 4.1 4.1 14.6 29.5 2.8 17.7 17.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 4.1 4.1 14.6 29.5 2.8 17.7 17.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.06 0.20 0.41 0.04 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 473 475 784 96 84 335 1339 63 798 357 v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 c0.28 c0.02 c0.13 0.08 0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.97 0.27 0.33 0.01 0.66 0.20 0.51 0.58 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 25.3 19.7 32.7 32.1 26.5 13.7 34.0 23.9 21.0 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 32.0 32.8 0.2 2.0 0.1 4.7 0.1 6.3 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 57.3 58.1 19.9 34.7 32.2 31.1 13.8 40.3 25.0 21.1 Level of Service E E B C C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 41.0 33.7 21.6 25.0 Approach LOS D C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 33.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.1 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 795 265 55 285 205 30 20 175 380 335 25 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 795 265 55 285 205 30 20 175 380 335 25 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 874 281 60 313 96 33 22 0 418 368 26 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 90 650 209 90 897 757 53 35 465 450 32 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1354 435 1781 1870 1577 1090 726 1585 1781 1726 122 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 0 1155 60 313 96 55 0 0 418 0 394 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1789 1781 1870 1577 1816 0 1585 1781 0 1848 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 0.0 45.0 3.1 9.8 3.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 18.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 0.0 45.0 3.1 9.8 3.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 18.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.07 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 90 0 859 90 897 757 88 0 465 0 482 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 1.35 0.67 0.35 0.13 0.62 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 380 0 859 380 897 757 426 0 532 0 552 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.7 0.0 24.4 43.7 15.2 13.5 43.8 0.0 0.0 33.5 0.0 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.0 163.2 3.1 0.3 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 7.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 56.5 1.4 3.9 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 9.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 0.0 187.6 46.9 15.6 13.6 46.4 0.0 0.0 49.1 0.0 39.8 LnGrp LOS D A F D B B D A D A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1215 469 55 A 812 Approach Delay, s/veh 180.6 19.2 46.4 44.6 Approach LOS F B D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 49.5 28.0 8.2 49.5 8.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.1 11.8 23.3 5.1 47.0 4.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 104.7 HCM 6th LOS F Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 1145 190 115 390 5 135 10 250 0 5 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 1145 190 115 390 5 135 10 250 0 5 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 1258 169 126 429 5 163 0 26 0 5 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 6 1670 716 324 671 8 337 0 150 0 13 11 Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 Sat Flow, veh/h 14 3633 1557 1781 3689 43 3563 0 1585 0 962 770 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 677 586 169 126 217 217 163 0 26 0 0 9 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1777 1557 1781 1870 1862 1781 0 1585 0 0 1732 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 16.2 4.0 3.8 6.5 6.6 2.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 16.2 4.0 3.8 6.5 6.6 2.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 859 817 716 324 340 339 337 0 150 0 0 24 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.72 0.24 0.39 0.64 0.64 0.48 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1261 1198 1050 1055 1107 1102 1406 0 626 0 0 570 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 13.2 10.0 21.9 23.0 23.0 26.1 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 29.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.9 0.1 0.6 1.5 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 5.3 1.1 1.5 2.7 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.6 14.1 10.1 22.5 24.5 24.5 26.5 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 33.2 LnGrp LOS B B B C C C C A C A A C Approach Vol, veh/h 1432 560 189 9 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.4 24.1 26.4 33.2 Approach LOS B C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 9.3 32.0 4.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 4.6 20.7 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.3 7.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1020 335 5 90 390 5 125 165 Future Volume (veh/h) 1020 335 5 90 390 5 125 165 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1062 244 94 406 130 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2041 885 127 2634 299 137 Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.74 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1541 1781 3647 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1062 244 94 406 130 32 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1541 1781 1777 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 1.6 2.7 1.7 1.9 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 1.6 2.7 1.7 1.9 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2041 885 127 2634 299 137 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.28 0.74 0.15 0.43 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4149 1800 1193 6802 2447 1123 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.8 0.9 23.8 2.0 22.6 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 3.2 0.0 1.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.0 1.1 26.9 2.0 23.6 23.1 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1306 500 162 Approach Delay, s/veh 5.9 6.7 23.5 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 35.0 43.7 8.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 11.5 3.7 3.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 16.6 4.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.6 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 100 455 90 0 315 0 0 240 5 85 95 130 Future Volume (vph) 100 455 90 0 315 0 0 240 5 85 95 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3116 3209 1804 1719 3085 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3116 3209 1804 1719 3085 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) 109 495 98 0 342 0 0 261 5 92 103 141 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 84 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 109 584 0 0 342 0 0 265 0 92 160 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 15 10 10 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 32.6 21.4 16.8 7.0 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 33.6 22.4 16.8 7.0 27.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.50 0.33 0.25 0.10 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 191 1551 1064 448 178 1256 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.19 0.11 c0.15 c0.05 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 0.38 0.32 0.59 0.52 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 10.5 16.9 22.3 28.6 12.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.2 0.2 2.1 1.1 0.0 Delay (s) 31.0 10.6 7.8 24.4 29.7 12.5 Level of Service C B A C C B Approach Delay (s) 13.8 7.8 24.4 17.2 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.5 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 115 390 0 85 300 145 10 45 190 0 10 65 Future Volume (vph) 115 390 0 85 300 145 10 45 190 0 10 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3174 1759 1473 1522 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3174 1716 1473 1522 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 126 429 0 93 330 159 11 49 209 0 11 71 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 124 0 41 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 126 429 0 93 443 0 0 60 85 0 41 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 5 10 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 21.8 7.1 18.4 27.5 27.5 27.5 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 21.8 7.1 19.4 28.5 27.5 28.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.32 0.11 0.29 0.42 0.41 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 1089 177 912 724 600 642 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.13 0.06 c0.14 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.39 0.53 0.49 0.08 0.14 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 17.7 28.6 19.9 11.7 12.6 11.6 Progression Factor 1.03 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 Delay (s) 27.2 13.0 29.9 20.3 11.7 12.7 11.6 Level of Service C B C C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.2 21.9 12.5 11.6 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.5 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 940 315 210 405 0 0 0 0 350 355 175 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 940 315 210 405 0 0 0 0 350 355 175 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 989 0 221 426 0 245 545 63 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 0 2173 808 2542 0 334 701 297 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.46 1.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 989 0 221 426 0 245 545 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 12.4 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.6 12.4 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 12.4 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.6 12.4 3.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2173 808 2542 0 334 701 297 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.46 0.27 0.17 0.00 0.73 0.78 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2173 808 2542 0 531 1114 472 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 18.6 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 34.5 34.9 31.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.6 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 19.3 0.0 19.5 0.1 0.0 35.7 35.6 31.2 LnGrp LOS A B B A A D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 989 A 647 853 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 6.8 35.3 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.9 43.0 21.1 68.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 * 38 26.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 14.4 14.4 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 9.5 2.3 4.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.8 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 20 25 105 0 40 10 0 275 160 75 190 Future Vol, veh/h 25 20 25 105 0 40 10 0 275 160 75 190 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 27 22 27 114 0 43 11 0 299 174 82 207 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.6 12.4 13.3 9.3 HCM LOS B B B A Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 36% 72% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 46% 29% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 54% 36% 28% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 148 298 70 145 75 95 95 LT Vol 0 0 25 105 75 0 0 Through Vol 148 138 20 0 0 95 95 RT Vol 0 160 25 40 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 160 323 76 158 82 103 103 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.272 0.515 0.142 0.296 0.148 0.173 0.122 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.111 5.729 6.719 6.768 6.54 6.033 4.238 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 587 627 533 531 548 594 842 Service Time 3.853 3.471 4.476 4.518 4.286 3.778 1.983 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.273 0.515 0.143 0.298 0.15 0.173 0.122 HCM Control Delay 11.1 14.4 10.6 12.4 10.4 10 7.6 HCM Lane LOS B B B B B A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 3 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 485 330 10 155 415 0 0 0 0 5 225 Future Volume (vph) 0 485 330 10 155 415 0 0 0 0 5 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3137 1535 3226 1603 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3137 1535 3226 1603 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 505 344 10 161 432 0 0 0 0 5 234 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 721 0 0 155 448 0 0 0 0 0 122 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 20.6 20.6 10.6 Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 20.6 20.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1003 470 988 252 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 0.10 c0.14 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.72 0.33 0.45 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 18.0 18.8 25.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.4 0.3 1.5 Delay (s) 22.7 18.4 19.1 27.3 Level of Service C B B C Approach Delay (s) 22.7 18.9 0.0 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.2 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 155 Future Volume (vph) 5 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 1509 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 161 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72 Lane Group Flow (vph) 122 89 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% Turn Type NA custom Protected Phases 4 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 32.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 32.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.48 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 253 720 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 25.8 9.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 27.2 9.8 Level of Service C A Approach Delay (s) 20.3 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 215 520 0 0 220 120 295 0 290 75 0 55 Future Volume (vph) 215 520 0 0 220 120 295 0 290 75 0 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1467 1671 1472 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1467 1671 1472 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 250 605 0 0 256 140 343 0 337 87 0 64 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000107001980058 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 605 0 0 256 33 0 343 139 87 0 6 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 32.3 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 6.0 6.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 32.3 16.0 16.0 18.0 18.0 6.0 6.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.48 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.09 0.09 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 564 837 788 346 443 390 147 132 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.34 0.08 c0.05 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.21 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.72 0.32 0.10 0.77 0.36 0.59 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 25.1 14.2 21.4 20.2 23.0 20.2 29.7 28.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 2.6 0.1 0.0 7.5 0.2 4.2 0.0 Delay (s) 25.6 16.8 21.5 20.3 30.5 20.4 33.9 28.3 Level of Service C B C C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 19.4 21.1 25.5 31.5 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 390 1005 65 25 545 95 145 105 40 125 70 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 390 1005 65 25 545 95 145 105 40 125 70 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 406 1047 64 26 568 84 151 109 42 130 73 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 373 1612 99 79 991 146 193 351 135 252 128 795 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3373 206 1767 3075 453 1202 1265 487 671 460 1618 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 406 547 564 26 325 327 151 0 151 203 0 94 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1817 1767 1763 1766 1202 0 1752 1132 0 1618 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.0 24.0 24.0 1.3 13.8 13.9 8.5 0.0 6.1 10.4 0.0 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.0 24.0 24.0 1.3 13.8 13.9 25.0 0.0 6.1 16.5 0.0 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.28 0.64 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 868 79 568 569 193 0 487 380 0 795 V/C Ratio(X) 1.09 0.65 0.65 0.33 0.57 0.58 0.78 0.00 0.31 0.53 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 868 98 568 569 193 0 487 380 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.93 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.6 24.1 24.1 41.7 25.3 25.4 41.8 0.0 25.7 31.0 0.0 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 67.9 3.1 3.1 0.7 3.4 3.4 17.2 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.4 10.9 11.2 0.6 6.0 6.1 4.3 0.0 2.6 4.0 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 106.5 27.3 27.2 42.4 28.7 28.8 59.0 0.0 25.8 31.7 0.0 12.5 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCEACCAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1517 678 302 297 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.5 29.3 42.4 25.6 Approach LOS DCDC Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 15.9 18.5 3.3 26.0 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 0.6 0.0 8.7 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 700 0 945 315 0 2195 275 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 700 0 945 315 0 2195 275 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1521 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1521 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 0 515 0 722 0 974 325 0 2263 284 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 132 0 0 72 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 515 0 653 0 974 193 0 2263 212 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 15 15 15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.3 39.9 71.1 71.1 89.7 89.7 Effective Green, g (s) 21.3 36.3 71.1 71.1 89.7 89.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.30 0.59 0.59 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 603 834 2983 873 3764 1136 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.24 0.19 c0.45 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.78 0.33 0.22 0.60 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 47.8 38.2 12.4 11.5 6.9 4.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.05 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.9 4.5 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 Delay (s)58.8 42.7 10.4 12.6 7.7 4.8 Level of Service E D B B A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 49.4 10.9 7.3 Approach LOS A D B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 205 0 120 00001055 570 0 1620 1040 Future Volume (vph) 205 0 120 00001055 570 0 1620 1040 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1571 1490 4565 5036 1491 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1571 1490 4565 5036 1491 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) 218 0 128 00001122 606 0 1723 1106 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 30 00000000185 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 106 78 00001728 0 0 1723 921 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 99.6 99.6 99.6 Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 99.6 99.6 99.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.83 0.83 0.83 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 158 149 141 3788 4179 1237 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.07 0.38 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.62 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.71 0.55 0.46 0.41 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 53.0 52.7 51.9 2.8 2.6 4.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.74 9.99 Incremental Delay, d2 16.8 12.6 2.7 0.3 0.3 3.4 Delay (s) 69.8 65.3 54.5 3.7 2.2 48.7 Level of Service E E D A A D Approach Delay (s) 63.5 0.0 3.7 20.4 Approach LOS E A A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 220 470 195 205 255 125 230 1120 170 20 225 940 Future Volume (vph) 220 470 195 205 255 125 230 1120 170 20 225 940 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.96 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1752 3505 1489 3400 3291 3400 5036 1505 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1489 3400 3291 3400 5036 1505 3400 5036 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) 232 495 205 216 268 132 242 1179 179 21 237 989 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 57 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 232 495 124 216 343 0 242 1179 113 0 258 989 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 35 35 20 15 20 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 30.8 30.8 10.1 24.7 10.8 51.6 51.6 11.3 51.6 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 30.8 30.8 10.1 24.7 10.8 51.6 51.6 11.3 51.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.21 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.09 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 256 899 382 286 677 306 2165 647 320 2165 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.14 0.06 0.10 0.07 c0.23 c0.08 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.55 0.32 0.76 0.51 0.79 0.54 0.18 0.81 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 50.4 38.6 36.2 53.7 42.2 53.5 25.5 21.1 53.3 24.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.16 Incremental Delay, d2 31.8 0.4 0.2 9.6 0.2 12.2 1.0 0.6 12.2 0.6 Delay (s) 82.2 39.0 36.3 63.4 42.5 65.7 26.4 21.7 67.5 28.8 Level of Service F D D E D E C C E C Approach Delay (s) 49.2 49.8 31.8 36.3 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 135 Future Volume (vph) 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1516 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1516 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 142 RTOR Reduction (vph) 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.6 Effective Green, g (s) 51.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 651 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 20.5 Progression Factor 1.54 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (s) 31.9 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 110 65 195 75 240 30 60 725 245 40 450 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 110 65 195 75 240 30 60 725 245 40 450 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 79 116 40 142 167 51 63 763 17 474 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 167 275 102 222 378 313 82 2107 649 509 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.42 0.42 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 565 1349 502 1203 1856 1538 1767 5066 1561 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 110 0 125 142 167 51 63 763 17 474 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 842 0 1574 1203 1856 1538 1767 1689 1561 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 8.3 13.9 9.4 3.3 4.2 12.4 0.8 31.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.1 0.0 8.3 22.2 9.4 3.3 4.2 12.4 0.8 31.3 Prop In Lane 0.72 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223 0 321 222 378 313 82 2107 649 509 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.39 0.64 0.44 0.16 0.77 0.36 0.03 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 360 0 489 222 378 313 265 2107 649 648 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.3 0.0 41.3 50.9 41.8 39.3 56.6 24.1 20.7 41.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.8 6.0 0.8 0.2 14.2 0.5 0.1 17.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 3.3 4.6 4.4 1.3 2.2 5.1 0.3 16.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.9 0.0 42.1 56.9 42.6 39.6 70.8 24.6 20.8 59.3 LnGrp LOS D A D E D D E C C E Approach Vol, veh/h 235 360 843 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.8 47.8 28.0 Approach LOS D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 83.3 28.2 37.5 54.3 28.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 53.6 19.0 44.0 27.6 37.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 18.1 24.2 33.3 14.4 20.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 13.7 0.0 1.2 4.4 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1335 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 1335 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1405 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 Cap, veh/h 3286 131 Arrive On Green 0.66 0.66 Sat Flow, veh/h 4997 199 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 950 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1819 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.1 16.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.1 16.1 Prop In Lane 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2221 1196 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2221 1196 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.8 9.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.4 10.9 LnGrp LOS B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1935 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.5 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 325 980 0 0 500 270 120 230 455 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 325 980 0 0 500 270 120 230 455 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 335 1010 0 0 515 0 124 345 353 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 700 2260 0 0 1343 450 473 401 Arrive On Green 0.41 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 335 1010 0 0 515 0 124 345 353 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 5.0 15.2 19.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 5.0 15.2 19.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 700 2260 0 0 1343 450 473 401 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.28 0.73 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 700 2260 0 0 1343 574 603 511 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.8 0.0 27.0 30.8 32.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.2 11.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.1 6.9 8.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 27.1 33.0 44.1 LnGrp LOS C A A A C C C D Approach Vol, veh/h 1345 515 A 822 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.3 30.5 36.8 Approach LOS A C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 62.2 23.2 39.0 27.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 44.0 13.0 * 34 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 8.4 14.0 21.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.4 0.3 4.4 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 4: Train & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.5 6.4 3.7 3.8 Vehicles Entered 177 90 11 278 Vehicles Exited 177 90 11 278 Hourly Exit Rate 177 90 11 278 Input Volume 181 90 10 281 % of Volume 98 100 107 99 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.9 7.5 3.5 4.0 1.8 2.7 9.3 11.0 8.5 10.4 8.6 7.9 Vehicles Entered 10 15 8 36 15 36 5 146 85 77 98 21 Vehicles Exited 10 15 8 36 15 36 5 146 85 78 97 21 Hourly Exit Rate 10 15 8 36 15 36 5 146 85 78 97 21 Input Volume 10 15 10 35 15 35 5 145 90 75 100 20 % of Volume 98 98 78 103 98 103 100 101 95 104 97 106 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.4 Vehicles Entered 552 Vehicles Exited 552 Hourly Exit Rate 552 Input Volume 556 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.5 0.9 3.8 6.0 6.7 6.4 4.1 5.7 Vehicles Entered 100 22 63 56 190 125 28 584 Vehicles Exited 100 22 62 56 192 125 29 586 Hourly Exit Rate 100 22 62 56 192 125 29 586 Input Volume 105 20 65 55 190 130 30 595 % of Volume 95 109 96 101 101 96 97 99 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 12.1 Vehicles Entered 889 Vehicles Exited 889 Hourly Exit Rate 889 Input Volume 2562 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2024 Plus Phase 1 AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 4: Train & Scott St Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 84 86 32 Average Queue (ft) 34 16 4 95th Queue (ft) 83 57 22 Link Distance (ft) 5 142 1849 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 50 53 169 182 Average Queue (ft) 21 29 62 71 95th Queue (ft) 47 45 124 133 Link Distance (ft) 525 5 1137 1856 Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 101 116 106 Average Queue (ft) 47 62 52 95th Queue (ft) 79 96 86 Link Distance (ft) 174 939 1430 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 21 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 90 295 330 5 130 410 0 0 280 100 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 90 295 330 5 130 410 0 0 280 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1740 3488 3265 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1740 3488 3265 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 99 324 363 5 143 451 0 0 308 110 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 99 292 400 0 0 594 0 0 335 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.6 13.4 13.4 12.6 10.8 Effective Green, g (s) 12.6 13.4 13.4 12.6 10.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 394 437 466 878 705 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.17 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.67 0.86 0.68 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 14.9 16.3 17.4 16.9 17.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 7.9 18.2 2.3 0.5 Delay (s) 15.4 24.2 35.6 19.1 17.6 Level of Service B C D B B Approach Delay (s) 15.4 30.8 19.1 17.6 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 355 205 25 310 335 5 845 435 Future Volume (veh/h) 355 205 25 310 335 5 845 435 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 447 0 330 356 899 169 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 535 246 1145 2343 1021 452 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.00 0.37 0.74 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 3156 1449 3061 3230 3230 1393 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 447 0 330 356 899 169 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1393 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.7 0.0 7.6 3.3 27.0 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 7.6 3.3 27.0 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 535 246 1145 2343 1021 452 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.00 0.29 0.15 0.88 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1041 478 1145 2343 1240 549 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.45 0.45 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.2 0.0 22.0 3.7 32.0 26.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 5.3 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.4 0.0 2.6 0.8 10.6 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.5 0.0 22.0 3.8 37.3 27.0 LnGrp LOS D A C A D C Approach Vol, veh/h 447 686 1068 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.5 12.6 35.7 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.0 37.0 79.0 21.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 39 48.4 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 29.0 5.3 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.4 1.5 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 170 55 90 685 250 240 45 485 125 115 475 120 Future Volume (vph) 170 55 90 685 250 240 45 485 125 115 475 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2890 3060 1660 1383 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1309 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2890 3060 1660 1383 1547 3094 1384 1408 2953 1309 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) 175 57 93 706 258 247 46 500 129 119 490 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 38 0 0 0 179 0 0 0 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 287 0 706 258 68 46 500 129 79 530 27 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 80 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.6 33.0 33.0 33.0 21.5 21.5 90.5 26.2 26.2 26.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.6 33.0 33.0 33.0 21.5 21.5 90.5 26.2 26.2 26.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.18 0.18 0.75 0.22 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 496 841 456 380 277 554 1043 307 644 285 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.23 0.16 0.03 c0.16 0.09 0.06 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.84 0.57 0.18 0.17 0.90 0.12 0.26 0.82 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 45.7 41.0 37.3 33.2 41.7 48.2 4.0 38.8 44.7 37.4 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 1.0 7.4 1.6 0.2 0.2 17.9 0.0 2.0 11.4 0.7 Delay (s) 46.7 48.4 39.0 33.4 41.9 66.2 4.0 40.9 56.1 38.1 Level of Service D D D C D E A D E D Approach Delay (s) 46.7 43.3 52.6 51.4 Approach LOS D D D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 47.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 35 180 35 370 250 20 20 225 400 40 260 45 Future Volume (vph) 35 180 35 370 250 20 20 225 400 40 260 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 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 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2725 1413 1465 1481 2224 1439 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.88 Satd. Flow (perm) 2725 1413 1465 1404 2224 1274 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 194 38 398 269 22 22 242 430 43 280 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 3 0 0 0 184 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 256 0 398 288 0 0 264 246 0 365 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 10 10 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.5 27.4 27.4 24.1 55.0 24.1 Effective Green, g (s) 28.5 27.4 27.4 24.1 51.5 24.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.57 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 862 430 446 375 1272 341 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.28 0.20 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.93 0.64 0.70 0.19 1.07 Uniform Delay, d1 23.2 30.3 27.1 29.7 9.3 33.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 25.4 2.4 4.8 0.0 68.8 Delay (s) 24.1 55.7 29.5 34.6 9.3 101.8 Level of Service C E C C A F Approach Delay (s) 24.1 44.6 18.9 101.8 Approach LOS C D B F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 43.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 215 190 760 290 380 120 20 275 160 840 145 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 215 190 760 290 380 120 20 275 160 840 145 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 283 0 800 305 0 126 21 0 168 884 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 197 413 880 462 149 821 380 1364 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.00 0.21 0.39 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 3622 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 133 283 0 800 305 0 126 21 0 168 884 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 9.0 0.0 27.0 18.1 0.0 9.3 0.6 0.0 9.9 24.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 9.0 0.0 27.0 18.1 0.0 9.3 0.6 0.0 9.9 24.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 413 880 462 149 821 380 1364 V/C Ratio(X) 0.68 0.68 0.91 0.66 0.85 0.03 0.44 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 318 667 914 480 160 821 380 1364 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.0 51.1 0.0 43.3 40.0 0.0 53.6 33.3 0.0 40.9 30.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.7 0.0 4.4 1.0 0.0 29.0 0.1 0.0 2.5 1.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 4.1 0.0 12.1 8.2 0.0 4.9 0.2 0.0 4.5 10.5 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.4 51.8 0.0 47.8 41.0 0.0 82.5 33.4 0.0 43.4 31.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D F C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 416 A 1105 A 147 A 1052 A Approach Delay, s/veh 52.0 45.9 75.5 33.6 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 51.3 18.3 30.7 35.8 35.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 36.0 22.1 17.1 * 31 31.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.3 26.6 11.0 11.9 2.6 29.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.4 1.1 0.1 0.0 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 135 400 60 405 20 485 210 55 10 200 570 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 135 400 60 405 20 485 210 55 10 200 570 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 148 147 64 431 17 516 223 0 11 213 420 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 143 482 406 139 466 18 819 842 391 410 327 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1484 1725 1728 68 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1469 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 148 147 64 0 448 516 223 0 11 213 420 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1484 1725 0 1796 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1469 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 6.9 8.4 3.7 0.0 25.6 14.7 5.6 0.0 0.5 10.7 23.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 6.9 8.4 3.7 0.0 25.6 14.7 5.6 0.0 0.5 10.7 23.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 143 482 406 139 0 484 819 842 391 410 327 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.31 0.36 0.46 0.00 0.93 0.63 0.26 0.03 0.52 1.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 492 410 182 0 496 832 855 391 410 327 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.73 0.73 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.0 31.7 30.8 46.1 0.0 37.3 35.0 31.6 0.0 31.9 35.9 40.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.0 22.6 3.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 148.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 5.4 3.0 1.6 0.0 14.0 6.1 2.3 0.0 0.2 4.8 21.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.8 39.4 31.1 47.0 0.0 59.9 38.4 32.3 0.0 31.9 36.4 189.4 LnGrp LOS D D C D A E D C C D F Approach Vol, veh/h 369 512 739 A 644 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.6 58.3 36.6 136.1 Approach LOS D E D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 32.9 31.4 12.8 32.5 28.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.1 29.0 23.4 11.1 29.0 23.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 10.4 16.7 6.4 27.6 25.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 70.0 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 390 25 290 35 45 35 10 380 360 50 15 25 Future Volume (vph) 390 25 290 35 45 35 10 380 360 50 15 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1631 2682 1754 1479 1703 3306 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1631 2682 1754 1479 1703 3306 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 406 26 302 36 47 36 10 396 375 52 16 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 239 0 0 33 0 0 8 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 207 225 63 0 83 3 0 406 419 0 0 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 20 30 30 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.3 16.3 16.3 7.5 7.5 20.8 35.2 4.6 Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 16.3 16.3 7.5 7.5 20.8 35.2 4.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.10 0.27 0.45 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 336 339 557 167 141 451 1484 99 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.14 c0.05 c0.24 0.13 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.66 0.11 0.50 0.02 0.90 0.28 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 28.5 25.2 33.7 32.1 27.8 13.6 35.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 4.8 0.1 2.3 0.1 20.7 0.1 2.9 Delay (s) 31.5 33.4 25.3 36.0 32.2 48.5 13.7 38.5 Level of Service C C C D C D B D Approach Delay (s) 29.5 34.8 30.7 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 515 185 Future Volume (vph) 515 185 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1481 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1481 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 536 193 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 536 47 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.0 19.0 Effective Green, g (s) 19.0 19.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 825 358 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 26.7 23.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.2 Delay (s) 28.5 23.4 Level of Service C C Approach Delay (s) 27.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 310 20 100 685 600 95 90 175 145 90 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 310 20 100 685 600 95 90 175 145 90 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 316 18 102 699 402 97 92 0 148 92 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 86 792 45 137 899 743 125 119 213 147 65 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.48 0.48 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1766 101 1795 1885 1559 943 895 1598 1795 1235 551 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 0 334 102 699 402 189 0 0 148 0 133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1867 1795 1885 1559 1838 0 1598 1795 0 1786 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 8.0 3.7 20.6 12.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 4.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 8.0 3.7 20.6 12.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 4.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.31 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 86 0 837 137 899 743 244 0 213 0 212 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.40 0.75 0.78 0.54 0.78 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 537 0 1256 537 1268 1049 604 0 751 0 747 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.0 0.0 12.4 30.3 14.6 12.3 28.1 0.0 0.0 28.3 0.0 28.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.4 3.0 2.6 0.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 3.1 1.6 7.8 3.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.6 0.0 12.8 33.3 17.1 13.2 30.1 0.0 0.0 29.9 0.0 29.2 LnGrp LOS C A B C B B C A C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 375 1203 189 A 281 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 17.2 30.1 29.6 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.7 36.4 11.4 8.6 34.5 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 45.0 28.0 20.0 45.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 22.6 7.3 5.7 10.0 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.3 0.7 0.1 3.2 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 640 95 390 1000 0 385 0 180 0 5 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 640 95 390 1000 0 385 0 180 0 5 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 646 44 394 1010 0 395 0 14 0 5 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 7 927 404 643 1350 0 546 0 240 0 14 8 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 Sat Flow, veh/h 27 3648 1588 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1582 0 1096 658 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 349 302 44 394 1010 0 395 0 14 0 0 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1884 1791 1588 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1582 0 0 1753 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.5 10.3 1.4 12.3 16.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.5 10.3 1.4 12.3 16.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 479 455 404 643 1350 0 546 0 240 0 0 22 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.66 0.11 0.61 0.75 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1136 1080 958 951 1996 0 1267 0 558 0 0 516 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 22.8 19.5 18.0 19.1 0.0 27.5 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 1.2 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 4.1 0.5 4.6 6.2 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 24.0 19.5 18.7 19.8 0.0 28.2 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 37.1 LnGrp LOS C C B B B A C A C A A D Approach Vol, veh/h 695 1404 409 8 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 19.5 28.0 37.1 Approach LOS C B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.4 13.8 21.4 4.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 9.1 13.5 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.4 0.7 3.2 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 670 140 165 1015 320 185 Future Volume (veh/h) 670 140 165 1015 320 185 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 691 70 170 1046 330 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 1796 797 215 2525 504 231 Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.70 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1590 1795 3676 3483 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 691 70 170 1046 330 49 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1590 1795 1791 1742 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 0.6 5.5 7.3 5.4 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 0.6 5.5 7.3 5.4 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1796 797 215 2525 504 231 V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.09 0.79 0.41 0.65 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3651 1620 1050 5985 2153 988 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.2 1.3 25.6 3.7 24.2 22.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 2.4 0.2 1.4 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.4 2.3 1.2 2.1 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.4 1.4 28.0 3.8 25.6 23.0 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 761 1216 379 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.7 7.2 25.3 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 35.0 47.2 12.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 9.1 9.3 7.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 8.2 14.6 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 85 360 95 5 570 0 0 215 5 135 330 225 Future Volume (vph) 85 360 95 5 570 0 0 215 5 135 330 225 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3181 1770 3303 1856 1770 3263 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3181 1770 3303 1856 1770 3263 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 89 379 100 5 600 0 0 226 5 142 347 237 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 97 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 465 0 5 600 0 0 230 0 142 487 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 45 15 15 20 20 35 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.1 32.4 1.0 26.3 15.5 11.0 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.1 33.4 1.0 27.3 15.5 11.0 30.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.45 0.01 0.37 0.21 0.15 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 1422 23 1207 385 260 1319 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.15 0.00 c0.18 c0.12 c0.08 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.53 0.33 0.22 0.50 0.60 0.55 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 13.4 36.5 18.4 26.8 29.5 15.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.47 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.1 1.6 0.3 2.5 1.3 0.2 Delay (s) 33.6 13.5 55.1 8.1 29.3 30.8 15.8 Level of Service C B E A C C B Approach Delay (s) 16.7 8.5 29.3 18.7 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 16.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 80 355 0 180 550 80 10 20 180 0 40 200 Future Volume (vph) 80 355 0 180 550 80 10 20 180 0 40 200 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3395 1798 1518 1579 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3395 1686 1518 1579 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 82 366 0 186 567 82 10 21 186 0 41 206 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 111 0 120 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 366 0 186 641 0 0 31 75 0 127 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.9 20.6 12.8 26.5 30.2 30.2 30.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.9 20.6 12.8 27.5 31.2 30.2 31.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.28 0.17 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 160 957 297 1249 704 613 659 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.11 c0.11 c0.19 c0.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.38 0.63 0.51 0.04 0.12 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 32.3 21.9 28.7 18.4 12.9 13.9 13.8 Progression Factor 1.26 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.2 3.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 41.8 19.9 31.7 18.7 12.9 14.0 13.9 Level of Service D B C B B B B Approach Delay (s) 23.9 21.6 13.9 13.9 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.7 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 495 150 440 890 0 0 0 0 205 120 285 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 495 150 440 890 0 0 0 0 205 120 285 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 544 0 484 978 0 245 104 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 0 1960 1285 2886 0 348 183 155 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.73 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 3619 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 544 0 484 978 0 245 104 46 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 4.7 2.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 5.9 4.7 2.4 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1960 1285 2886 0 348 183 155 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.28 0.38 0.34 0.00 0.70 0.57 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1960 1285 2886 0 869 456 386 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.5 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 39.4 38.9 37.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 2.6 2.2 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 19.8 0.0 8.3 0.2 0.0 40.4 39.9 38.2 LnGrp LOS A B A A A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 544 A 1462 395 Approach Delay, s/veh 19.8 2.9 40.0 Approach LOS B A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.9 39.0 13.1 76.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 * 34 21.6 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 8.6 7.9 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 5.0 0.7 13.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 18.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 15 25 165 0 125 10 0 325 160 95 595 Future Vol, veh/h 35 15 25 165 0 125 10 0 325 160 95 595 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 36 15 26 168 0 128 10 0 332 163 97 607 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 13.2 23.4 21.8 15.6 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 47% 57% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 50% 20% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 50% 33% 43% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 173 323 75 290 95 298 298 LT Vol 0 0 35 165 95 0 0 Through Vol 173 163 15 0 0 298 298 RT Vol 0 160 25 125 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 176 329 77 296 97 304 304 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.384 0.686 0.182 0.64 0.205 0.598 0.448 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.861 7.503 8.552 7.781 7.604 7.091 5.311 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 456 480 419 465 471 507 674 Service Time 5.631 5.272 6.33 5.539 5.363 4.849 3.068 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.386 0.685 0.184 0.637 0.206 0.6 0.451 HCM Control Delay 15.5 25.2 13.2 23.4 12.3 19.9 12.4 HCM Lane LOS C D B C B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 5.1 0.7 4.4 0.8 3.9 2.3 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 430 370 30 420 710 0 0 0 0 175 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 430 370 30 420 710 0 0 0 0 175 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3235 1595 3341 1665 1665 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3235 1595 3341 1665 1665 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) 0 453 389 32 442 747 0 0 0 0 184 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 687 0 0 394 827 0 0 0 0 92 92 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 21.6 24.6 24.6 7.5 7.5 Effective Green, g (s) 21.6 24.6 24.6 7.5 7.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1024 575 1205 183 183 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.25 c0.25 c0.06 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 18.5 18.5 28.6 28.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 3.4 1.6 2.2 2.2 Delay (s) 22.0 21.9 20.2 30.8 30.8 Level of Service C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 22.0 20.7 0.0 20.3 Approach LOS C C A C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.2 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 330 Future Volume (vph) 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 347 RTOR Reduction (vph) 13 Lane Group Flow (vph) 334 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type custom Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.1 Effective Green, g (s) 29.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 669 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 14.2 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 Delay (s) 14.8 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 215 410 0 0 710 370 380 0 350 105 0 75 Future Volume (vph) 215 410 0 0 710 370 380 0 350 105 0 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1509 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1509 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 231 441 0 0 763 398 409 0 376 113 0 81 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000291002400072 Lane Group Flow (vph) 231 441 0 0 763 107 0 409 136 113 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 38.5 22.3 22.3 23.6 23.6 9.2 9.2 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 38.5 22.3 22.3 23.6 23.6 9.2 9.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.46 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.11 0.11 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 475 849 934 406 494 442 192 172 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.24 c0.22 c0.07 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.24 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.52 0.82 0.26 0.83 0.31 0.59 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 15.6 28.3 23.8 27.7 23.2 35.0 32.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.2 5.3 0.1 10.4 0.1 3.0 0.0 Delay (s) 33.6 15.8 33.7 23.9 38.1 23.4 38.0 32.9 Level of Service C B C C D C D C Approach Delay (s) 21.9 30.3 31.1 35.9 Approach LOS CCCD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.8 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 510 130 75 1165 160 105 130 45 130 130 425 Future Volume (veh/h) 215 510 130 75 1165 160 105 130 45 130 130 425 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 231 548 121 81 1253 172 113 140 48 140 140 457 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 399 1522 335 104 1098 150 91 378 130 200 161 828 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.53 0.53 0.06 0.35 0.35 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2894 637 1781 3138 428 819 1321 453 511 562 1605 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 231 336 333 81 707 718 113 0 188 280 0 457 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1754 1781 1777 1790 819 0 1774 1073 0 1605 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.6 11.0 11.1 4.5 35.0 35.0 2.3 0.0 8.5 17.8 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 11.0 11.1 4.5 35.0 35.0 28.6 0.0 8.5 26.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.26 0.50 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 399 935 922 104 622 626 91 0 507 361 0 828 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.36 0.36 0.78 1.14 1.15 1.25 0.00 0.37 0.78 0.00 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 410 935 922 143 622 626 91 0 507 367 0 835 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.59 0.59 0.59 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.6 13.9 13.9 46.5 32.5 32.5 49.8 0.0 28.5 38.2 0.0 16.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.0 1.0 7.1 73.2 77.4 174.4 0.0 0.2 8.3 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 4.3 4.3 2.2 26.9 27.9 6.7 0.0 3.6 7.5 0.0 7.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.7 14.8 14.9 53.6 105.7 109.9 224.2 0.0 28.7 46.5 0.0 17.0 LnGrp LOS D B B D F F F A C D A B Approach Vol, veh/h 900 1506 301 737 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.2 104.9 102.1 28.2 Approach LOS C F F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.4 40.0 32.6 9.8 57.6 32.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 * 35 29.0 8.0 46.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.6 37.0 28.3 6.5 13.1 30.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 6.3 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.1 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1180 0 1690 360 0 1795 410 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1180 0 1690 360 0 1795 410 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1229 0 1760 375 0 1870 427 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 196 0 0 108 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1223 0 1760 179 0 1870 319 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.8 69.4 71.6 71.6 112.2 112.2 Effective Green, g (s) 28.8 65.8 71.6 71.6 112.2 112.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 665 1234 2451 709 3841 1164 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.43 c0.34 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.99 0.72 0.25 0.49 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 57.2 41.8 31.2 23.3 7.5 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 2.01 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 23.4 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 Delay (s)61.5 65.2 28.7 47.6 7.9 6.6 Level of Service E E C D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 64.2 32.0 7.7 Approach LOS A E C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 310 0 380 00001740 520 0 1555 745 Future Volume (vph) 310 0 380 00001740 520 0 1555 745 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1511 1519 4761 5136 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1511 1519 4761 5136 1553 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) 326 0 400 00001832 547 0 1637 784 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 45 00000000175 Lane Group Flow (vph) 251 198 187 00002379 0 0 1637 609 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 10 15 15 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.4 24.4 24.4 116.6 116.6 116.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 24.4 24.4 116.6 116.6 116.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.78 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 276 245 247 3700 3992 1207 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.13 c0.50 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.39 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.81 0.76 0.64 0.41 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 61.7 60.5 60.0 7.4 5.5 6.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.04 1.39 5.15 Incremental Delay, d2 30.6 16.5 11.1 0.7 0.3 1.3 Delay (s) 92.4 77.1 71.0 15.9 7.8 32.8 Level of Service F E E B A C Approach Delay (s) 80.4 0.0 15.9 15.9 Approach LOS F A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 190 300 245 290 455 240 325 1365 120 70 295 1240 Future Volume (vph) 190 300 245 290 455 240 325 1365 120 70 295 1240 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1787 3574 1544 3467 3332 3467 5136 1523 3467 5136 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1544 3467 3332 3467 5136 1523 3467 5136 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) 202 319 261 309 484 255 346 1452 128 74 314 1319 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 125 0 45 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 319 136 309 694 0 346 1452 70 0 388 1319 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 30 15 15 30 5 20 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.3 40.4 40.4 18.1 37.6 19.3 55.5 55.5 19.8 55.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 40.4 40.4 18.1 37.6 19.3 55.5 55.5 19.8 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.25 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 265 962 415 418 835 446 1900 563 457 1900 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.09 0.09 c0.21 0.10 c0.28 c0.11 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.33 0.33 0.74 0.83 0.78 0.76 0.12 0.85 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 61.3 44.0 43.9 63.7 53.2 63.3 41.5 31.2 63.6 40.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.04 Incremental Delay, d2 12.2 0.2 0.5 6.7 7.1 8.2 3.0 0.5 12.5 1.9 Delay (s) 73.5 44.2 44.4 70.4 60.3 71.5 44.5 31.7 88.9 43.6 Level of Service E D D E E E D C F D Approach Delay (s) 51.8 63.3 48.5 51.7 Approach LOS D E D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 205 Future Volume (vph) 205 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 58 Lane Group Flow (vph) 160 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.5 Effective Green, g (s) 55.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 579 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 33.2 Progression Factor 1.01 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 Delay (s) 34.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 60 60 350 145 340 115 220 1790 255 60 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 60 60 350 145 340 115 220 1790 255 60 180 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 63 36 260 303 110 232 1884 156 189 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 161 263 150 317 488 397 259 2818 870 215 Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.55 0.55 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 438 1015 580 1283 1885 1536 1795 5147 1589 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 0 99 260 303 110 232 1884 156 189 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 438 0 1595 1283 1885 1536 1795 1716 1589 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.4 0.0 7.4 30.1 21.3 8.6 19.1 39.2 7.4 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 35.7 0.0 7.4 37.5 21.3 8.6 19.1 39.2 7.4 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 161 0 413 317 488 397 259 2818 870 215 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.24 0.82 0.62 0.28 0.90 0.67 0.18 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 260 0 574 317 488 397 431 2818 870 395 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.9 0.0 43.9 58.8 49.1 44.4 63.1 24.2 17.0 64.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.0 0.3 15.6 2.4 0.4 13.0 1.3 0.5 10.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 0.0 3.0 11.2 10.4 3.4 9.7 16.2 2.9 7.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.3 0.0 44.2 74.4 51.5 44.8 76.1 25.5 17.5 75.9 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D E C B E Approach Vol, veh/h 194 673 2272 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.0 59.3 30.1 Approach LOS E E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.6 82.9 42.5 21.0 86.5 42.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 48.9 36.0 33.0 27.6 54.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.1 23.0 39.5 17.5 41.2 37.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 9.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1020 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 1020 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1074 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 2481 254 Arrive On Green 0.52 0.52 Sat Flow, veh/h 4741 485 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 777 407 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.9 21.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.9 21.0 Prop In Lane 0.27 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1795 939 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1795 939 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.0 22.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.7 9.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.8 23.5 LnGrp LOS C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1373 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.3 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 545 0 0 1060 650 275 525 315 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 155 545 0 0 1060 650 275 525 315 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 168 592 0 0 1152 0 299 571 342 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 232 2037 0 0 1639 575 603 509 Arrive On Green 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1590 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 592 0 0 1152 0 299 571 342 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1590 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 12.2 26.6 16.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 12.2 26.6 16.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 232 2037 0 0 1639 575 603 509 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.52 0.95 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 2037 0 0 1639 579 607 512 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.0 25.0 29.8 26.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 23.6 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 5.0 15.3 6.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 25.3 53.5 29.3 LnGrp LOS D A A A C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 760 1152 A 1212 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.7 20.7 39.7 Approach LOS B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 56.2 10.0 46.2 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 6.0 41.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.2 25.1 28.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 6.3 0.0 9.3 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 2: Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 1.5 6.2 3.8 3.8 Vehicles Entered 154 145 9 308 Vehicles Exited 154 145 9 308 Hourly Exit Rate 154 145 9 308 Input Volume 155 152 9 316 % of Volume 99 96 97 97 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.5 8.4 3.6 4.2 3.6 3.1 8.6 9.7 6.5 8.9 7.7 6.5 Vehicles Entered 15 10 6 110 8 23 5 188 87 58 180 12 Vehicles Exited 15 10 6 110 8 23 5 188 87 57 179 12 Hourly Exit Rate 15 10 6 110 8 23 5 188 87 57 179 12 Input Volume 15 10 5 115 7 25 5 190 85 60 180 10 % of Volume 98 98 120 95 119 93 100 99 103 95 100 117 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.4 Vehicles Entered 702 Vehicles Exited 700 Hourly Exit Rate 700 Input Volume 707 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.0 3.6 5.5 5.9 7.4 5.1 5.8 Vehicles Entered 51 82 28 137 183 113 594 Vehicles Exited 51 82 28 137 183 112 593 Hourly Exit Rate 51 82 28 137 183 112 593 Input Volume 50 85 30 135 190 115 606 % of Volume 101 96 93 101 96 97 98 Denied Entry Before 0000000 Denied Entry After 0000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.9 Vehicles Entered 1078 Vehicles Exited 1073 Hourly Exit Rate 1073 Input Volume 2888 % of Volume 37 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report 2024 Plus Phase 1 PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 2: Scott St Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 85 96 16 Average Queue (ft) 16 26 1 95th Queue (ft) 60 75 11 Link Distance (ft) 8 138 482 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 45 61 140 156 Average Queue (ft) 20 34 60 76 95th Queue (ft) 45 46 105 126 Link Distance (ft) 516 8 947 1729 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 89 95 138 Average Queue (ft) 44 50 68 95th Queue (ft) 73 81 106 Link Distance (ft) 186 939 1415 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 23 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 60 515 155 5 45 155 0 0 405 35 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 60 515 155 5 45 155 0 0 405 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1687 3433 3414 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1687 3433 3414 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 68 585 176 6 51 176 0 0 460 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 68 380 387 0 0 227 0 0 494 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 45.4 45.4 13.0 28.4 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 45.4 45.4 13.0 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 748 765 446 969 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.07 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 39.6 19.4 19.3 40.5 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 2.5 2.4 1.2 1.9 Delay (s) 40.9 21.8 21.7 41.8 31.9 Level of Service D C C D C Approach Delay (s) 40.9 21.8 41.8 31.9 Approach LOS D C D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 615 285 30 145 190 5 400 220 Future Volume (veh/h) 615 285 30 145 190 5 400 220 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 428 444 151 198 417 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 507 485 1067 1750 514 219 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.36 0.58 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1287 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 428 444 151 198 417 42 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1287 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.2 29.4 3.4 3.0 13.3 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.2 29.4 3.4 3.0 13.3 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 507 485 1067 1750 514 219 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.92 0.14 0.11 0.81 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 636 609 1067 1750 767 327 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.69 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.9 31.9 21.4 9.5 40.0 35.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.3 13.3 0.0 0.1 9.4 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.3 11.9 1.2 0.9 5.5 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.1 45.2 21.4 9.6 49.4 37.0 LnGrp LOS D D C A D D Approach Vol, veh/h 872 349 459 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.3 14.7 48.2 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.9 21.6 62.5 37.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 25 39.4 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 15.3 5.0 31.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.3 0.8 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 190 275 85 245 130 80 35 350 405 540 395 125 Future Volume (vph) 190 275 85 245 130 80 35 350 405 540 395 125 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 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 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3014 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2946 1264 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3014 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2946 1264 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) 200 289 89 258 137 84 37 368 426 568 416 132 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 563 0 258 137 10 37 368 426 375 609 42 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 70 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 16.3 16.3 73.0 33.8 33.8 33.8 Effective Green, g (s) 23.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 16.3 16.3 73.0 33.8 33.8 33.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.70 0.32 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 663 351 190 161 227 454 910 457 948 406 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.09 0.09 0.03 c0.13 0.33 c0.26 0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.74 0.72 0.07 0.16 0.81 0.47 0.82 0.64 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 39.3 44.3 44.2 40.5 38.4 42.9 7.2 32.8 30.4 25.0 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 9.6 7.8 12.6 0.2 0.2 10.3 0.3 15.2 3.3 0.5 Delay (s) 48.8 52.1 56.8 40.7 38.7 53.1 7.5 48.0 33.8 25.5 Level of Service D D E D D D A D C C Approach Delay (s) 48.8 51.4 29.1 37.6 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 40 405 45 250 85 15 10 150 460 45 240 15 Future Volume (vph) 40 405 45 250 85 15 10 150 460 45 240 15 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2764 1413 1443 1482 2224 1462 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 2764 1413 1443 1455 2224 1379 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 435 48 269 91 16 11 161 495 48 258 16 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 124 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 516 0 269 98 0 0 172 371 0 319 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 15 15 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.1 17.0 17.0 19.9 40.4 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 26.1 17.0 17.0 19.9 36.9 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.51 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 988 329 336 396 1124 375 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 c0.19 0.07 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.23 v/c Ratio 0.52 0.82 0.29 0.43 0.33 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 26.5 23.0 21.9 10.7 25.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 13.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 16.1 Delay (s) 20.5 40.3 23.2 22.2 10.8 41.3 Level of Service C D C C B D Approach Delay (s) 20.5 35.5 13.7 41.3 Approach LOS C D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 225 160 315 185 200 170 45 450 235 655 110 Future Volume (veh/h) 155 225 160 315 185 200 170 45 450 235 655 110 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 279 0 332 195 0 179 47 0 247 689 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 178 373 508 267 209 709 547 1415 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.21 0.00 0.32 0.41 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3503 0 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 133 279 0 332 195 0 179 47 0 247 689 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 0 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 9.8 0.0 11.1 12.5 0.0 10.8 1.2 0.0 12.0 15.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 9.8 0.0 11.1 12.5 0.0 10.8 1.2 0.0 12.0 15.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 178 373 508 267 209 709 547 1415 V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.75 0.65 0.73 0.86 0.07 0.45 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 287 604 628 330 261 709 547 1415 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.91 0.91 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.1 44.1 0.0 46.7 47.4 0.0 45.2 33.4 0.0 28.6 22.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.0 0.0 1.4 5.2 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 3.5 0.0 4.7 5.8 0.0 5.5 0.5 0.0 4.9 6.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.2 45.1 0.0 48.1 52.6 0.0 62.5 33.4 0.0 28.8 23.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 412 A 527 A 226 A 936 A Approach Delay, s/veh 45.5 49.8 56.5 25.0 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.8 48.1 18.2 38.2 26.7 21.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 27.5 22.0 22.4 * 21 21.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.8 17.5 11.8 14.0 3.2 14.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.6 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 385 370 30 165 30 330 695 360 35 135 255 Future Volume (veh/h) 175 385 370 30 165 30 330 695 360 35 135 255 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 188 414 118 32 177 28 355 747 0 38 145 86 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16 Cap, veh/h 234 441 366 87 218 35 1303 1340 197 206 162 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1427 1499 1317 208 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1305 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 188 414 118 32 0 205 355 747 0 38 145 86 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1427 1499 0 1525 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1305 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.9 25.1 8.2 2.2 0.0 13.6 7.6 17.8 0.0 2.3 8.8 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 25.1 8.2 2.2 0.0 13.6 7.6 17.8 0.0 2.3 8.8 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 441 366 87 0 253 1303 1340 197 206 162 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.94 0.32 0.37 0.00 0.81 0.27 0.56 0.19 0.70 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 234 441 366 143 0 347 1303 1340 348 366 287 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.6 48.1 39.5 47.6 0.0 42.2 21.9 25.0 0.0 41.3 44.1 43.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 24.7 0.3 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.2 1.6 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 25.0 3.1 0.8 0.0 5.6 3.0 7.2 0.0 0.9 3.7 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.2 151.1 39.8 48.6 0.0 49.2 22.3 26.2 0.0 41.4 45.8 44.1 LnGrp LOS E F D D A D C C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 720 237 1102 A 269 Approach Delay, s/veh 109.9 49.1 24.9 44.6 Approach LOS F D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 31.5 45.5 19.6 22.0 17.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 26.9 26.9 13.0 * 24 23.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 27.1 19.8 13.9 15.6 10.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.9 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 900 20 700 15 10 15 240 355 25 25 440 120 Future Volume (vph) 900 20 700 15 10 15 240 355 25 25 440 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1693 1482 1656 3280 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1693 1482 1656 3280 1626 3252 1455 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) 947 21 737 16 11 16 253 374 26 26 463 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 528 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 96 Lane Group Flow (vph) 483 485 209 0 27 1 253 396 0 26 463 30 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 4.0 4.0 16.2 31.3 2.7 17.8 17.8 Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 4.0 4.0 16.2 31.3 2.7 17.8 17.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.43 0.04 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 463 765 92 80 364 1394 59 786 351 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 0.30 c0.02 c0.15 0.12 0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.05 1.05 0.27 0.29 0.01 0.70 0.28 0.44 0.59 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 26.4 20.5 33.4 32.9 26.4 13.8 34.7 24.7 21.6 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 55.0 54.8 0.2 1.8 0.1 5.7 0.1 5.2 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 81.4 81.2 20.7 35.2 33.0 32.1 13.9 39.9 25.8 21.7 Level of Service F F C D C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 55.1 34.4 21.0 25.6 Approach LOS E C C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.6 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 10 15 50 5 45 5 160 130 85 160 5 Future Volume (vph) 10 10 15 50 5 45 5 160 130 85 160 5 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1559 1535 1576 1644 Flt Permitted 0.94 0.87 1.00 0.82 Satd. Flow (perm) 1481 1367 1569 1375 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) 11 11 16 54 5 49 5 174 141 92 174 5 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 29 0 0 63 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 28 0 0 79 0 0 257 0 0 269 0 Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 592 546 627 550 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.06 0.16 c0.20 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.14 0.41 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 8.3 8.6 9.7 10.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 2.0 3.1 Delay (s) 8.4 9.1 11.7 13.2 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay (s) 8.4 9.1 11.7 13.2 Approach LOS A A B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 65 765 325 50 375 215 50 25 215 395 365 35 Future Volume (veh/h) 65 765 325 50 375 215 50 25 215 395 365 35 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 841 347 55 412 107 55 27 0 434 401 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 89 738 304 70 1078 910 68 34 386 366 34 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1256 518 1781 1870 1578 1214 596 1585 1781 1686 156 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 1188 55 412 107 82 0 0 434 0 438 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1774 1781 1870 1578 1810 0 1585 1781 0 1841 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 0.0 88.0 4.6 17.9 4.6 6.7 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 32.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 88.0 4.6 17.9 4.6 6.7 0.0 0.0 32.5 0.0 32.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 89 0 1042 70 1078 910 102 0 386 0 399 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 1.14 0.78 0.38 0.12 0.81 0.00 1.12 0.00 1.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 149 0 1042 71 1078 910 103 0 386 0 399 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.4 0.0 30.9 71.3 17.2 14.4 69.9 0.0 0.0 58.7 0.0 58.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 0.0 74.8 38.2 0.3 0.1 33.5 0.0 0.0 83.7 0.0 73.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 57.8 2.8 7.6 1.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 23.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.3 0.0 105.8 109.5 17.5 14.5 103.4 0.0 0.0 142.3 0.0 132.4 LnGrp LOS E A F F B B F A F A F Approach Vol, veh/h 1259 574 82 A 872 Approach Delay, s/veh 104.1 25.8 103.4 137.4 Approach LOS F C F F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 90.9 36.0 9.4 92.5 11.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 81.5 32.5 6.0 88.0 8.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 19.9 34.5 6.6 90.0 8.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 98.4 HCM 6th LOS F Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 1175 190 175 500 5 135 5 265 0 5 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 1175 190 175 500 5 135 5 265 0 5 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 1291 169 192 549 5 165 0 34 0 5 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 6 1660 711 381 791 7 313 0 139 0 13 11 Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 Sat Flow, veh/h 13 3633 1557 1781 3700 34 3563 0 1585 0 962 770 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 695 601 169 192 277 277 165 0 34 0 0 9 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1870 1777 1557 1781 1870 1864 1781 0 1585 0 0 1732 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.4 18.5 4.4 6.3 9.1 9.1 3.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.4 18.5 4.4 6.3 9.1 9.1 3.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 854 812 711 381 400 398 313 0 139 0 0 24 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.74 0.24 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.53 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1150 1092 957 962 1010 1006 1282 0 570 0 0 519 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.7 14.9 11.0 23.1 24.2 24.2 29.1 0.0 28.4 0.0 0.0 32.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 1.5 0.1 0.8 1.6 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.2 6.5 1.3 2.5 3.8 3.8 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.6 16.4 11.2 23.9 25.8 25.8 29.6 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 36.2 LnGrp LOS B B B C C C C A C A A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1465 746 199 9 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.9 25.3 29.5 36.2 Approach LOS B C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.4 9.3 34.6 4.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.1 5.0 23.4 2.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.3 7.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 955 505 5 140 495 10 185 190 Future Volume (veh/h) 955 505 5 140 495 10 185 190 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 995 421 146 516 193 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1920 832 188 2615 353 162 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.11 0.74 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1541 1781 3647 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 995 421 146 516 193 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1541 1781 1777 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.9 4.1 4.4 2.5 2.9 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 4.1 4.4 2.5 2.9 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1920 832 188 2615 353 162 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.51 0.78 0.20 0.55 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3904 1693 1123 6400 2303 1056 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.1 1.5 24.2 2.3 23.7 23.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.7 2.6 0.1 1.3 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 1.8 1.8 0.2 1.2 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.5 2.1 26.8 2.3 25.0 24.6 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1416 662 251 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.6 7.7 24.9 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.9 35.0 45.9 9.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 11.9 4.5 4.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 17.4 5.4 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9 HCM 6th LOS A Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 90 460 60 10 345 0 0 235 10 95 160 140 Future Volume (vph) 90 460 60 10 345 0 0 235 10 95 160 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3143 1719 3209 1796 1719 3150 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3143 1719 3209 1796 1719 3150 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) 98 500 65 11 375 0 0 255 11 103 174 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 93 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 559 0 11 375 0 0 264 0 103 233 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 15 15 15 15 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.3 32.4 1.0 26.1 16.8 7.5 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 33.4 1.0 27.1 16.8 7.5 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.46 0.01 0.37 0.23 0.10 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 173 1447 23 1199 416 177 1216 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.18 0.01 0.12 c0.15 c0.06 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.57 0.39 0.48 0.31 0.64 0.58 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 12.8 35.5 16.1 25.1 31.0 14.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.39 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 0.2 5.5 0.1 3.2 3.1 0.1 Delay (s) 33.6 13.0 54.9 8.2 28.3 34.1 14.8 Level of Service C B D A C C B Approach Delay (s) 16.0 9.6 28.3 19.5 Approach LOS B A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.5 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 150 415 0 70 310 120 5 130 135 0 45 110 Future Volume (vph) 150 415 0 70 310 120 5 130 135 0 45 110 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.85 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3201 1773 1472 1566 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3201 1764 1472 1566 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 456 0 77 341 132 5 143 148 0 49 121 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 91 0 73 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 456 0 77 442 0 0 148 57 0 97 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 5 10 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 26.7 6.7 20.5 28.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 26.7 6.7 21.5 29.0 28.0 29.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.37 0.09 0.30 0.40 0.39 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 300 1242 155 949 705 568 626 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.14 0.05 c0.14 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.08 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.37 0.50 0.47 0.21 0.10 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 16.7 31.3 20.8 14.2 14.2 13.9 Progression Factor 1.14 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 32.2 11.2 32.2 21.2 14.4 14.3 14.0 Level of Service C B C C B B B Approach Delay (s) 16.8 22.7 14.3 14.0 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 72.5 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 885 365 285 470 0 0 0 0 395 415 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 885 365 285 470 0 0 0 0 395 415 180 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 932 0 300 495 0 277 631 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 0 2001 835 2450 0 380 797 338 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.48 1.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 932 0 300 495 0 277 631 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 12.2 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 12.9 14.3 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 12.2 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 12.9 14.3 3.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2001 835 2450 0 380 797 338 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.47 0.36 0.20 0.00 0.73 0.79 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2001 835 2450 0 571 1198 508 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.5 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 33.1 33.6 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 5.5 6.4 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 21.3 0.0 19.2 0.1 0.0 34.1 34.7 29.3 LnGrp LOS A C B A A C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 932 A 795 976 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 7.3 34.2 Approach LOS C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.6 40.0 23.4 66.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 * 35 28.6 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 14.2 16.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 8.4 2.8 5.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.8 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 20 20 150 0 85 5 0 250 145 165 215 Future Vol, veh/h 25 20 20 150 0 85 5 0 250 145 165 215 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 27 22 22 163 0 92 5 0 272 158 179 234 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11.5 16.5 15 11.3 HCM LOS B C B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 38% 64% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 46% 31% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 54% 31% 36% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 130 270 65 235 165 108 108 LT Vol 0 0 25 150 165 0 0 Through Vol 130 125 20 0 0 108 108 RT Vol 0 145 20 85 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 141 293 71 255 179 117 117 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.269 0.527 0.147 0.495 0.347 0.21 0.151 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.848 6.464 7.475 6.972 6.968 6.458 4.655 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 520 552 483 513 513 552 761 Service Time 4.647 4.262 5.175 4.761 4.759 4.249 2.444 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.271 0.531 0.147 0.497 0.349 0.212 0.154 HCM Control Delay 12.2 16.3 11.5 16.5 13.5 11 8.3 HCM Lane LOS B C B C B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 3.1 0.5 2.7 1.5 0.8 0.5 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 490 350 5 150 395 0 0 0 0 5 245 Future Volume (vph) 0 490 350 5 150 395 0 0 0 0 5 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3130 1535 3226 1603 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3130 1535 3226 1603 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 510 365 5 156 411 0 0 0 0 5 255 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 740 0 0 145 427 0 0 0 0 0 132 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.2 20.3 20.3 11.0 Effective Green, g (s) 22.2 20.3 20.3 11.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1021 458 963 259 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.09 c0.13 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.72 0.32 0.44 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 20.2 18.5 19.3 26.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 0.4 0.3 1.6 Delay (s) 22.8 18.9 19.6 27.6 Level of Service C B B C Approach Delay (s) 22.8 19.4 0.0 Approach LOS C B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 68.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 155 Future Volume (vph) 5 155 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1609 1509 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1609 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 161 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 77 Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 84 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% Turn Type NA custom Protected Phases 4 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 33.2 Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 260 736 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 9.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.1 Delay (s) 27.7 9.5 Level of Service C A Approach Delay (s) 20.8 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 215 525 0 0 220 130 270 0 415 115 0 60 Future Volume (vph) 215 525 0 0 220 130 270 0 415 115 0 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1467 1671 1471 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1467 1671 1471 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 250 610 0 0 256 151 314 0 483 134 0 70 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000118001650061 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 610 0 0 256 33 0 314 318 134 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 32.5 16.0 16.0 19.7 19.7 9.7 9.7 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 32.5 16.0 16.0 19.7 19.7 9.7 9.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.44 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.13 0.13 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 530 778 728 319 448 394 220 197 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.35 0.08 c0.08 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.19 c0.22 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.78 0.35 0.10 0.70 0.81 0.61 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 17.5 24.3 23.0 24.2 25.1 30.1 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 4.8 0.1 0.1 4.0 10.9 3.3 0.0 Delay (s) 28.5 22.3 24.4 23.0 28.2 36.0 33.3 27.8 Level of Service C C C C C D C C Approach Delay (s) 24.1 23.9 32.9 31.4 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.4 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 445 1005 65 25 700 120 145 105 40 180 80 160 Future Volume (veh/h) 445 1005 65 25 700 120 145 105 40 180 80 160 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 464 1047 64 26 729 110 151 109 42 188 83 167 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 373 1612 99 79 987 149 95 351 135 266 87 795 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3373 206 1767 3064 462 1116 1265 487 712 315 1618 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 464 547 564 26 419 420 151 0 151 271 0 167 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1817 1767 1763 1764 1116 0 1752 1027 0 1618 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.0 26.2 26.2 1.3 19.0 19.1 1.2 0.0 6.1 17.7 0.0 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.0 26.2 26.2 1.3 19.0 19.1 25.0 0.0 6.1 23.8 0.0 5.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.28 0.69 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 868 79 568 568 95 0 487 353 0 795 V/C Ratio(X) 1.24 0.65 0.65 0.33 0.74 0.74 1.60 0.00 0.31 0.77 0.00 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 868 98 568 568 95 0 487 353 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.9 30.8 30.8 41.7 27.1 27.1 44.9 0.0 25.7 35.1 0.0 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 126.5 3.1 3.0 0.6 5.5 5.5 312.1 0.0 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 22.0 12.9 13.2 0.6 8.5 8.5 10.3 0.0 2.6 6.5 0.0 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 168.4 33.9 33.8 42.3 32.6 32.6 357.0 0.0 25.8 42.5 0.0 13.1 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCFACDAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1575 865 302 438 Approach Delay, s/veh 73.5 32.9 191.4 31.3 Approach LOS E C F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 21.1 25.8 3.3 28.2 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.8 HCM 6th LOS E Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 515 0 760 0 1080 415 0 2390 300 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 515 0 760 0 1080 415 0 2390 300 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.6 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1465 5036 1517 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1465 5036 1517 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 0 531 0 784 0 1113 428 0 2464 309 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 539 0 0 213 0 0 73 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 531 0 245 0 1113 215 0 2464 236 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)20 15 15 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.3 32.4 69.1 69.1 105.1 105.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.3 32.4 69.1 69.1 105.1 105.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.24 0.50 0.50 0.76 0.76 Clearance Time (s) 3.6 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 601 650 2532 736 3852 1160 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.09 0.22 c0.49 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.38 0.44 0.29 0.64 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 55.2 44.0 21.8 19.9 7.4 4.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.0 0.1 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.4 Delay (s)69.2 44.2 22.3 20.9 8.3 4.9 Level of Service E D C C A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 54.3 22.0 7.9 Approach LOS A D C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 137.4 Sum of lost time (s) 11.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 125 0 265 00001370 575 0 1830 1075 Future Volume (vph) 125 0 265 00001370 575 0 1830 1075 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 0.85 0.96 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1443 1490 4612 5036 1467 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1443 1490 4612 5036 1467 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) 133 0 282 00001457 612 0 1947 1144 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 32 32 00000000191 Lane Group Flow (vph) 120 116 115 00002069 0 0 1947 953 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 15 15 15 15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.0 12.0 12.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.82 0.82 0.82 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 144 149 3804 4154 1210 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.08 0.45 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.65 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.80 0.77 0.54 0.47 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 52.8 52.6 3.3 3.0 5.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.4 25.3 19.0 0.4 0.4 5.2 Delay (s) 64.7 78.2 71.7 3.3 3.4 10.5 Level of Service E E E A A B Approach Delay (s) 72.0 0.0 3.3 6.0 Approach LOS EAAA Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 270 455 190 205 340 125 350 1280 145 15 230 1040 Future Volume (vph) 270 455 190 205 340 125 350 1280 145 15 230 1040 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1752 3505 1482 3400 3326 3400 5036 1494 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1482 3400 3326 3400 5036 1494 3400 5036 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) 284 479 200 216 358 132 368 1347 153 16 242 1095 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 35 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 284 479 122 216 455 0 368 1347 82 0 258 1095 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 40 40 25 15 25 25 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 34.5 34.5 10.1 26.0 13.0 45.7 45.7 13.5 45.7 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 34.5 34.5 10.1 26.0 13.0 45.7 45.7 13.5 45.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1007 426 286 720 368 1917 568 382 1917 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.14 0.06 c0.14 c0.11 c0.27 0.08 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.48 0.29 0.76 0.63 1.00 0.70 0.14 0.68 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 35.3 33.2 53.7 42.7 53.5 31.4 24.3 51.1 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.87 Incremental Delay, d2 44.7 0.1 0.1 9.6 1.3 46.9 2.2 0.5 3.3 1.1 Delay (s) 94.5 35.4 33.3 63.4 44.0 100.4 33.6 24.9 52.0 26.8 Level of Service F D C E D F C C D C Approach Delay (s) 52.4 49.9 46.0 29.8 Approach LOS D D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 19 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 245 Future Volume (vph) 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1516 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1516 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 258 RTOR Reduction (vph) 85 Lane Group Flow (vph) 173 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.7 Effective Green, g (s) 45.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 577 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.30 Uniform Delay, d1 26.0 Progression Factor 0.74 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 Delay (s) 20.4 Level of Service C Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 120 55 240 80 345 25 65 1085 375 35 480 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 120 55 240 80 345 25 65 1085 375 35 480 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 79 126 30 168 202 161 68 1142 154 505 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 172 337 86 259 434 358 87 1863 574 540 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.37 0.37 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 511 1441 368 1199 1856 1532 1767 5066 1560 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 104 0 131 168 202 161 68 1142 154 505 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 717 0 1603 1199 1856 1532 1767 1689 1560 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 0.0 8.2 16.3 11.2 10.8 4.6 22.1 8.3 33.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.6 0.0 8.2 24.5 11.2 10.8 4.6 22.1 8.3 33.3 Prop In Lane 0.76 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220 0 375 259 434 358 87 1863 574 540 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.35 0.65 0.47 0.45 0.78 0.61 0.27 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 285 0 468 328 541 447 177 1863 574 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.9 0.0 38.3 48.5 39.5 39.4 56.4 31.0 26.6 40.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.6 3.0 0.8 0.9 13.8 1.5 1.1 17.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 3.3 5.1 5.2 4.2 2.4 9.2 3.3 16.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.5 0.0 38.9 51.5 40.3 40.2 70.2 32.5 27.8 57.7 LnGrp LOS D A D D D D E C C E Approach Vol, veh/h 235 531 1364 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.2 43.8 33.8 Approach LOS D D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 79.3 31.8 39.7 48.5 31.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 61.9 35.0 47.0 26.9 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 20.6 26.5 35.3 24.1 22.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.2 1.6 1.4 2.0 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1380 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 1380 60 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1453 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 Cap, veh/h 3111 131 Arrive On Green 0.62 0.62 Sat Flow, veh/h 4985 209 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 984 530 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1817 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.6 18.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.6 18.6 Prop In Lane 0.12 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2108 1134 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2108 1134 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 12.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.9 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.7 13.3 LnGrp LOS B B Approach Vol, veh/h 2019 Approach Delay, s/veh 24.1 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 320 960 0 0 635 300 130 230 545 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 320 960 0 0 635 300 130 230 545 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 330 990 0 0 655 0 134 389 400 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1173 2154 0 0 750 504 529 448 Arrive On Green 0.68 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 330 990 0 0 655 0 134 389 400 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 5.3 17.0 21.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.4 0.0 5.3 17.0 21.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1173 2154 0 0 750 504 529 448 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.27 0.74 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1173 2154 0 0 750 614 644 546 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.7 0.0 25.0 29.2 31.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.1 2.5 13.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 2.2 7.7 9.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 51.7 0.0 25.1 31.8 44.3 LnGrp LOS B A A A D C C D Approach Vol, veh/h 1320 655 A 923 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.0 51.7 36.2 Approach LOS A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 59.6 35.6 24.0 30.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.0 26.0 * 19 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.4 18.4 23.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.4 0.6 0.3 1.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/24/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CNP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report CNP AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Train & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.0 8.8 4.8 4.8 Vehicles Entered 229 104 25 358 Vehicles Exited 230 104 25 359 Hourly Exit Rate 230 104 25 359 Input Volume 226 106 24 355 % of Volume 102 98 105 101 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.9 11.7 4.4 4.1 6.0 3.0 9.9 14.3 12.6 12.1 9.6 8.3 Vehicles Entered 9 11 14 47 4 46 5 158 136 83 156 5 Vehicles Exited 9 11 14 47 4 46 5 158 136 82 157 5 Hourly Exit Rate 9 11 14 47 4 46 5 158 136 82 157 5 Input Volume 10 10 15 50 5 45 5 160 130 85 160 5 % of Volume 88 107 92 94 76 102 100 99 105 96 98 100 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.7 Vehicles Entered 674 Vehicles Exited 674 Hourly Exit Rate 674 Input Volume 681 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report CNP AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.3 1.4 5.5 7.4 7.9 7.6 5.2 7.1 Vehicles Entered 116 14 109 55 254 202 42 792 Vehicles Exited 116 14 109 55 254 203 42 793 Hourly Exit Rate 116 14 109 55 254 203 42 793 Input Volume 120 13 105 60 255 205 40 798 % of Volume 97 106 104 92 100 99 105 99 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.4 Vehicles Entered 1173 Vehicles Exited 1171 Hourly Exit Rate 1171 Input Volume 3323 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report CNP AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 1: Train & Scott Street Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 92 96 48 Average Queue (ft) 59 27 12 95th Queue (ft) 78 72 39 Link Distance (ft) 4 139 475 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 Queuing Penalty (veh) 36 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 52 243 182 Average Queue (ft) 23 33 85 82 95th Queue (ft) 50 45 186 148 Link Distance (ft) 525 4 1115 1863 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 135 157 138 Average Queue (ft) 63 74 66 95th Queue (ft) 107 122 109 Link Distance (ft) 184 938 791 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 42 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 85 370 360 5 125 450 0 0 340 105 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 85 370 360 5 125 450 0 0 340 105 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 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1739 3489 3283 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1739 3489 3283 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 93 407 396 5 137 495 0 0 374 115 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 93 366 442 0 0 632 0 0 424 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.4 12.6 12.6 12.4 11.8 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 12.6 12.6 13.0 12.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 406 411 438 907 814 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.18 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.25 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.89 1.01 0.70 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 18.0 18.7 16.7 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 24.0 45.3 2.5 0.6 Delay (s) 15.0 42.0 64.0 19.3 16.8 Level of Service B D E B B Approach Delay (s) 15.0 54.0 19.3 16.8 Approach LOS B D B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 32.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 400 225 20 315 375 5 930 530 Future Volume (veh/h) 400 225 20 315 375 5 930 530 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 515 0 335 399 989 270 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 602 276 1235 2277 862 381 Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.40 0.72 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3156 1449 3061 3230 3230 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 515 0 335 399 989 270 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1391 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 0.0 7.3 4.0 27.4 17.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 0.0 7.3 4.0 27.4 17.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 602 276 1235 2277 862 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.27 0.18 1.15 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 915 420 1235 2277 862 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.95 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.12 0.12 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.1 0.0 20.0 4.4 36.3 32.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 67.9 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.4 0.0 2.5 1.1 18.3 5.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 0.0 20.0 4.5 104.2 34.1 LnGrp LOS D A C A F C Approach Vol, veh/h 515 734 1259 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.3 11.6 89.2 Approach LOS D B F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.9 32.0 76.9 23.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 * 27 52.4 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.3 29.4 6.0 17.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 1.7 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 56.8 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 170 70 85 800 285 340 60 510 170 195 530 120 Future Volume (vph) 170 70 85 800 285 340 60 510 170 195 530 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2896 3060 1660 1381 1547 3094 1384 1408 2948 1309 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2896 3060 1660 1381 1547 3094 1384 1408 2948 1309 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) 175 72 88 825 294 351 62 526 175 201 546 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 93 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 304 0 825 294 85 62 526 175 133 614 31 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 95 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.8 29.1 29.1 29.1 21.1 21.1 90.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 29.1 29.1 29.1 21.1 21.1 90.3 30.3 30.3 30.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 501 742 402 334 272 544 1041 355 744 330 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.27 0.18 0.04 c0.17 0.13 0.09 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.61 1.11 0.73 0.25 0.23 0.97 0.17 0.37 0.83 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 45.8 45.5 41.9 36.7 42.5 49.1 4.2 37.0 42.4 34.3 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 1.4 68.1 6.7 0.4 0.3 30.0 0.1 3.0 10.1 0.6 Delay (s) 47.2 113.6 48.6 37.1 42.8 79.1 4.3 40.0 52.5 34.9 Level of Service D F D D D E A D D C Approach Delay (s) 47.2 82.3 59.0 48.1 Approach LOS D F E D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 65.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 40 200 35 425 275 40 20 225 430 50 270 45 Future Volume (vph) 40 200 35 425 275 40 20 225 430 50 270 45 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2727 1413 1448 1481 2224 1437 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.80 Satd. Flow (perm) 2727 1413 1448 1382 2224 1151 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 215 38 457 296 43 22 242 462 54 290 48 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 6 0 0 0 182 0 5 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 283 0 457 333 0 0 264 280 0 387 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 15 25 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 32.7 32.7 23.8 60.0 23.8 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 32.2 32.2 22.8 54.5 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.61 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 696 505 518 350 1346 291 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.32 0.23 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.34 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.90 0.64 0.75 0.21 1.33 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 27.4 24.1 31.0 8.0 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 19.2 2.1 8.0 0.0 169.9 Delay (s) 29.6 46.7 26.2 39.0 8.0 203.5 Level of Service C D C D A F Approach Delay (s) 29.6 37.9 19.3 203.5 Approach LOS C D B F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 60.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 185 210 880 275 425 105 15 270 180 885 150 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 185 210 880 275 425 105 15 270 180 885 150 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 125 271 0 926 289 0 111 16 0 189 932 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 192 402 996 523 143 651 420 1269 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.09 0.20 0.00 0.24 0.36 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 3622 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125 271 0 926 289 0 111 16 0 189 932 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.3 8.6 0.0 31.3 16.2 0.0 8.2 0.5 0.0 11.0 27.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.3 8.6 0.0 31.3 16.2 0.0 8.2 0.5 0.0 11.0 27.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 192 402 996 523 143 651 420 1269 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.67 0.93 0.55 0.78 0.02 0.45 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 316 664 1018 534 146 651 420 1269 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.1 51.2 0.0 41.5 36.1 0.0 53.5 38.2 0.0 39.0 33.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.0 20.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 4.0 0.0 13.6 7.2 0.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 4.8 11.7 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.4 51.9 0.0 43.2 36.2 0.0 73.7 38.3 0.0 39.6 34.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D D E D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 396 A 1215 A 127 A 1121 A Approach Delay, s/veh 52.1 41.6 69.3 34.9 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.7 48.1 17.9 33.4 29.4 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 33.5 22.0 20.0 * 25 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.2 29.6 10.6 13.0 2.5 33.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 140 395 105 415 25 490 295 125 15 405 725 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 140 395 105 415 25 490 295 125 15 405 725 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 59 149 143 112 441 23 521 314 0 16 431 585 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 133 411 351 158 428 23 720 740 486 510 410 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1470 1725 1702 89 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1481 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 149 143 112 0 464 521 314 0 16 431 585 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1470 1725 0 1791 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1481 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 7.4 8.7 6.6 0.0 25.4 15.3 8.3 0.0 0.7 23.2 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 7.4 8.7 6.6 0.0 25.4 15.3 8.3 0.0 0.7 23.2 29.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 133 411 351 158 0 457 720 740 486 510 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.36 0.41 0.71 0.00 1.01 0.72 0.42 0.03 0.84 1.43 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 431 356 164 0 433 752 773 486 510 410 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.2 35.2 33.7 46.3 0.0 39.1 38.0 35.2 0.0 27.7 35.8 37.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.3 0.4 10.6 0.0 45.9 5.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 11.8 205.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 5.9 3.1 3.3 0.0 17.4 6.6 3.6 0.0 0.3 11.9 33.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 46.7 34.2 57.0 0.0 85.0 43.5 36.8 0.0 27.7 47.6 243.2 LnGrp LOS D D C E A F D D C D F Approach Vol, veh/h 351 576 835 A 1032 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.6 79.5 41.0 158.1 Approach LOS D E D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 28.6 28.8 12.2 30.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 25.4 22.4 10.0 25.4 29.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 10.7 17.3 5.5 27.4 31.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 92.3 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 460 25 310 35 45 30 5 400 390 45 20 25 Future Volume (vph) 460 25 310 35 45 30 5 400 390 45 20 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 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 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1629 2682 1754 1467 1703 3312 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1629 2682 1754 1467 1703 3312 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 479 26 323 36 47 31 5 417 406 47 21 26 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 260 0 0 26 0 0 7 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 244 261 63 0 83 5 0 422 446 0 0 47 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 35 35 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 16.1 16.1 20.7 37.9 5.1 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 16.1 16.1 20.7 37.9 5.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.41 0.06 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 316 319 525 307 257 383 1365 94 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.16 c0.05 c0.25 0.13 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.77 0.82 0.12 0.27 0.02 1.10 0.33 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 35.0 35.4 30.4 32.8 31.4 35.6 18.3 42.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.1 14.9 0.1 0.5 0.0 76.3 0.1 4.1 Delay (s) 46.1 50.3 30.5 33.3 31.4 111.9 18.5 46.3 Level of Service D D C C C F B D Approach Delay (s) 41.4 32.8 63.6 Approach LOS D C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 46.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.9 Sum of lost time (s) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 680 250 Future Volume (vph) 680 250 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1481 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1481 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 708 260 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 197 Lane Group Flow (vph) 708 63 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.3 22.3 Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 22.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 826 359 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 27.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.7 0.2 Delay (s) 42.0 27.8 Level of Service D C Approach Delay (s) 38.6 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 365 25 85 685 735 95 90 280 235 105 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 45 365 25 85 685 735 95 90 280 235 105 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 372 24 87 699 540 97 92 0 240 107 62 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 78 752 49 112 845 699 113 108 291 182 105 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.43 0.42 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1752 113 1795 1885 1559 943 895 1598 1795 1120 649 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 0 396 87 699 540 189 0 0 240 0 169 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1865 1795 1885 1559 1838 0 1598 1795 0 1768 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 10.9 3.4 23.0 20.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 6.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 10.9 3.4 23.0 20.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 6.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 0 800 112 845 699 221 0 291 0 287 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.00 0.49 0.78 0.83 0.77 0.86 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 0 824 251 950 786 267 0 570 0 562 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.3 0.0 14.7 32.7 17.1 16.5 30.6 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 27.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 0.7 4.3 6.0 4.7 17.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 4.4 1.5 9.7 7.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 0.0 15.3 37.0 23.1 21.2 48.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 0.0 28.1 LnGrp LOS D A B D C C D A C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 442 1326 189 A 409 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.5 23.3 48.0 29.8 Approach LOS B C D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 35.7 15.5 8.4 34.4 12.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 35.2 23.0 10.4 30.8 10.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 25.0 11.2 5.4 12.9 9.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.2 0.8 0.0 3.2 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 775 100 400 1075 0 425 0 215 0 5 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 775 100 400 1075 0 425 0 215 0 5 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 783 49 404 1086 0 446 0 37 0 5 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 6 1039 452 643 1350 0 553 0 244 0 7 4 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.01 0.01 Sat Flow, veh/h 22 3653 1589 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1582 0 1094 657 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 423 365 49 404 1086 0 446 0 37 0 0 8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1884 1791 1589 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1582 0 0 1751 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.8 14.9 1.8 15.1 21.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.8 14.9 1.8 15.1 21.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.37 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 536 510 452 643 1350 0 553 0 244 0 0 11 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.72 0.11 0.63 0.80 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 955 908 806 800 1680 0 1041 0 459 0 0 421 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.7 26.1 21.4 21.6 23.5 0.0 33.1 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 40.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 1.4 0.1 0.8 2.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 32.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.2 6.0 0.7 5.9 8.9 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 27.5 21.5 22.3 25.6 0.0 34.2 0.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 72.9 LnGrp LOS C C C C C A C A C A A E Approach Vol, veh/h 837 1490 483 8 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.7 24.7 33.9 72.9 Approach LOS C C C E Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.0 16.5 27.1 4.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 23.0 11.7 18.8 2.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.9 0.8 3.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 740 230 155 925 525 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 740 230 155 925 525 180 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 763 163 160 954 541 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 1711 759 202 2391 728 334 Arrive On Green 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.67 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1589 1795 3676 3483 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 763 163 160 954 541 44 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1589 1795 1791 1742 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 1.2 5.6 7.8 9.4 1.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 1.2 5.6 7.8 9.4 1.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1711 759 202 2391 728 334 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.21 0.79 0.40 0.74 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3423 1519 969 5576 1986 911 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.2 1.1 28.0 4.9 24.0 20.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 2.6 0.2 1.5 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 1.1 2.4 1.8 3.7 0.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.5 1.3 30.6 5.0 25.5 21.0 LnGrp LOS B A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 926 1114 585 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 8.7 25.2 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 35.0 47.3 17.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 11.2 9.8 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 10.0 12.5 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 100 530 95 15 605 0 0 270 15 190 290 220 Future Volume (vph) 100 530 95 15 605 0 0 270 15 190 290 220 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3210 1770 3303 1845 1770 3229 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3210 1770 3303 1845 1770 3229 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 105 558 100 16 637 0 0 284 16 200 305 232 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 105 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 105 649 0 16 637 0 0 298 0 200 432 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 50 20 20 25 25 40 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 38.8 1.1 31.7 20.1 14.2 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 39.8 1.1 32.7 20.1 14.2 38.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.45 0.01 0.37 0.23 0.16 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 1435 21 1213 416 282 1378 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.20 0.01 c0.19 c0.16 c0.11 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.64 0.45 0.76 0.53 0.72 0.71 0.31 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 17.0 43.8 22.1 31.8 35.4 16.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.39 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.4 0.2 78.5 0.4 5.8 6.5 0.1 Delay (s) 45.4 17.3 139.5 11.0 37.6 42.0 17.0 Level of Service D B F B D D B Approach Delay (s) 21.1 14.1 37.6 23.8 Approach LOS C B D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 165 530 0 160 610 60 10 70 145 0 120 215 Future Volume (vph) 165 530 0 160 610 60 10 70 145 0 120 215 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3417 1816 1515 1636 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3417 1752 1515 1636 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 170 546 0 165 629 62 10 72 149 0 124 222 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 85 0 72 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 170 546 0 165 686 0 0 82 64 0 274 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.4 26.9 13.0 27.5 38.0 38.0 38.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.4 26.9 13.0 28.5 39.0 38.0 39.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.30 0.15 0.32 0.44 0.43 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 1049 253 1094 767 646 716 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.16 c0.10 c0.20 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.52 0.65 0.63 0.11 0.10 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 36.6 25.7 35.9 25.7 14.7 15.3 16.9 Progression Factor 1.16 0.84 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.4 4.5 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 Delay (s) 49.3 22.1 40.4 26.9 14.8 15.3 17.2 Level of Service D C D C B B B Approach Delay (s) 28.5 29.5 15.1 17.2 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 89.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 575 215 455 940 0 0 0 0 200 130 315 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 575 215 455 940 0 0 0 0 200 130 315 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 632 0 500 1033 0 147 285 53 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 0 1037 1875 2870 0 210 441 187 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 1810 3800 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 632 0 500 1033 0 147 285 53 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 6.5 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 6.5 2.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1037 1875 2870 0 210 441 187 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.61 0.27 0.36 0.00 0.70 0.65 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1037 1875 2870 0 362 760 322 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.3 38.0 36.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.1 3.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 39.9 38.6 36.7 LnGrp LOS A D A A A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 632 A 1533 485 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 0.2 38.8 Approach LOS D A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.6 22.0 14.4 75.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 * 17 17.6 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 12.0 9.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.2 1.0 14.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 32.1 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 20 20 185 0 210 10 0 445 125 175 560 Future Vol, veh/h 30 20 20 185 0 210 10 0 445 125 175 560 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 31 20 20 189 0 214 10 0 454 128 179 571 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 14.7 55 35.2 18.9 HCM LOS B F E C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 43% 47% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 64% 29% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 36% 29% 53% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 233 348 70 395 175 280 280 LT Vol 0 0 30 185 175 0 0 Through Vol 233 223 20 0 0 280 280 RT Vol 0 125 20 210 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 237 355 71 403 179 286 286 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.581 0.843 0.191 0.924 0.423 0.636 0.494 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.822 8.559 9.649 8.254 8.536 8.017 6.219 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 410 422 372 439 423 451 580 Service Time 6.572 6.309 7.403 5.971 6.26 5.741 3.942 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.578 0.841 0.191 0.918 0.423 0.634 0.493 HCM Control Delay 23.2 43.2 14.7 55 17.4 23.8 14.9 HCM Lane LOS C E B F C C B HCM 95th-tile Q 3.6 8.1 0.7 10.4 2.1 4.3 2.7 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 490 410 35 450 765 0 0 0 0 180 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 490 410 35 450 765 0 0 0 0 180 0 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 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3238 1595 3327 1665 1665 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3238 1595 3327 1665 1665 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) 0 516 432 37 474 805 0 0 0 0 189 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 801 0 0 331 985 0 0 0 0 94 95 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 23.4 25.6 25.6 7.8 7.8 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 26.6 26.6 8.3 8.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.37 0.37 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1108 595 1241 193 193 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.21 c0.30 0.06 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.72 0.56 0.79 0.49 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 20.5 17.7 19.9 29.5 29.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 1.1 3.6 1.9 2.0 Delay (s) 22.9 18.8 23.5 31.4 31.5 Level of Service C B C C C Approach Delay (s) 22.9 22.3 0.0 19.8 Approach LOS C C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 22.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.73 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 335 Future Volume (vph) 335 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 353 RTOR Reduction (vph) 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 341 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type custom Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.2 Effective Green, g (s) 33.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 730 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 Delay (s) 13.5 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 255 450 0 0 700 365 475 0 490 105 0 75 Future Volume (vph) 255 450 0 0 700 365 475 0 490 105 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 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1507 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1507 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 484 0 0 753 392 511 0 527 113 0 81 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000294002040073 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 484 0 0 753 98 0 511 323 113 0 8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 40.3 22.7 22.7 31.5 31.5 9.3 9.3 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 40.8 23.2 23.2 31.0 31.0 8.8 8.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.44 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 494 804 869 377 581 519 164 147 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.26 c0.22 c0.07 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.29 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.60 0.87 0.26 0.88 0.62 0.69 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 36.7 19.7 33.2 27.8 29.0 25.9 40.6 38.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.9 8.8 0.1 13.8 1.7 9.2 0.1 Delay (s) 38.0 20.6 42.0 28.0 42.8 27.6 49.8 38.2 Level of Service D C D C D C D D Approach Delay (s) 26.9 37.2 35.1 44.9 Approach LOS CDDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.6 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 270 645 130 70 1155 185 100 125 45 170 125 470 Future Volume (veh/h) 270 645 130 70 1155 185 100 125 45 170 125 470 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 290 694 121 75 1242 199 108 134 48 183 134 505 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 594 2175 379 96 1319 210 72 378 135 226 124 1013 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.72 0.71 0.05 0.43 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3024 527 1781 3068 488 790 1302 467 584 428 1597 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 290 408 407 75 716 725 108 0 182 317 0 505 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1774 1781 1777 1779 790 0 1769 1012 0 1597 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 8.4 8.4 4.2 38.5 39.2 0.0 0.0 8.1 20.9 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 8.4 8.4 4.2 38.5 39.2 29.0 0.0 8.1 29.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.26 0.58 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 594 1278 1276 96 764 765 72 0 513 350 0 1013 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.78 0.94 0.95 1.50 0.00 0.35 0.91 0.00 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 594 1278 1276 160 764 765 72 0 513 350 0 1013 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.52 0.52 0.52 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.5 5.1 5.2 46.7 27.2 27.6 50.0 0.0 28.1 40.3 0.0 10.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.7 12.6 13.9 284.3 0.0 0.2 23.9 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 2.5 2.6 1.9 17.9 18.6 7.5 0.0 3.5 10.2 0.0 5.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.7 5.7 5.7 49.4 39.8 41.5 334.3 0.0 28.3 64.3 0.0 10.4 LnGrp LOS C A A D D D F A C E A B Approach Vol, veh/h 1105 1516 290 822 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.2 41.1 142.2 31.1 Approach LOS B D F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.4 47.0 33.0 9.4 75.9 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 42 29.0 9.0 49.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 41.2 31.0 6.2 10.4 31.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.9 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1215 0 1915 430 0 1890 470 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 480 0 1215 0 1915 430 0 1890 470 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 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1461 5136 1557 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1461 5136 1557 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 1266 0 1995 448 0 1969 490 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 680 0 0 145 0 0 88 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 500 0 586 0 1995 303 0 1969 402 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot Prot NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.3 64.4 91.1 91.1 159.1 159.1 Effective Green, g (s) 31.9 64.0 91.5 91.5 159.5 159.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.32 0.46 0.46 0.80 0.80 Clearance Time (s) 3.6 3.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 554 903 2356 670 4108 1245 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.21 c0.39 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.65 0.85 0.45 0.48 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 82.2 58.1 47.7 36.8 6.5 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.6 1.2 4.0 2.2 0.4 0.7 Delay (s)99.8 59.3 51.7 39.0 6.9 6.1 Level of Service F E D D A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 70.8 49.4 6.7 Approach LOS A E D A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 39.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 199.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 315 0 400 00002030 570 0 1600 770 Future Volume (vph) 315 0 400 00002030 570 0 1600 770 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1508 1519 4767 5136 1515 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1508 1519 4767 5136 1515 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) 332 0 421 00002137 600 0 1684 811 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 30 00000000198 Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 220 214 00002737 0 0 1684 613 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 10 20 20 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.8 21.8 21.8 93.2 93.2 93.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 22.3 22.3 93.7 93.7 93.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.76 0.76 0.76 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 271 273 3602 3880 1144 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.15 c0.57 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.40 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.43 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 49.2 48.8 48.5 8.7 5.5 6.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.6 15.8 12.6 1.6 0.4 1.8 Delay (s) 67.8 64.6 61.2 10.3 5.9 8.0 Level of Service E E E B A A Approach Delay (s) 64.6 0.0 10.3 6.6 Approach LOS EABA Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 124.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 325 460 305 300 445 205 320 1410 125 80 325 1260 Future Volume (vph) 325 460 305 300 445 205 320 1410 125 80 325 1260 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.6 4.6 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1787 3574 1535 3467 3346 3467 5136 1523 3467 5136 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1535 3467 3346 3467 5136 1523 3467 5136 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) 346 489 324 319 473 218 340 1500 133 85 346 1340 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 92 0 37 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 346 489 232 319 654 0 340 1500 74 0 431 1340 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 35 20 20 35 5 20 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 29.9 44.6 44.6 16.3 32.4 16.7 53.2 53.2 19.7 55.7 Effective Green, g (s) 30.4 45.1 45.1 16.8 32.9 17.2 53.7 53.7 20.2 56.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 362 1074 461 388 733 397 1838 545 466 1924 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.14 0.09 c0.20 0.10 c0.29 c0.12 0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.46 0.50 0.82 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.14 0.92 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 59.1 42.5 43.2 65.1 56.8 65.2 43.7 32.5 64.2 39.7 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 35.3 0.1 0.3 12.5 12.9 15.9 4.1 0.5 23.9 2.1 Delay (s) 94.4 42.6 43.5 77.7 69.8 81.0 47.8 33.0 88.0 41.8 Level of Service F D D E E F D C F D Approach Delay (s) 58.3 72.3 52.5 50.8 Approach LOS E E D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 56.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 85 55 380 165 420 100 210 1805 390 75 285 Future Volume (veh/h) 95 85 55 380 165 420 100 210 1805 390 75 285 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 89 31 287 332 194 221 1900 299 300 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 183 366 128 360 572 465 238 2282 703 311 Arrive On Green 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 446 1207 420 1260 1885 1534 1795 5147 1587 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 0 120 287 332 194 221 1900 299 300 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 446 0 1627 1260 1885 1534 1795 1716 1587 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.3 0.0 8.3 33.3 22.3 15.1 18.3 48.9 19.4 24.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 38.7 0.0 8.3 41.6 22.3 15.1 18.3 48.9 19.4 24.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 183 0 494 360 572 465 238 2282 703 311 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.24 0.80 0.58 0.42 0.93 0.83 0.43 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 210 0 542 398 628 511 455 2282 703 323 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.5 0.0 39.3 54.9 44.2 41.7 64.4 36.8 28.6 61.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.0 0.3 9.9 1.1 0.6 14.9 3.7 1.9 39.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 3.4 11.6 10.7 5.9 9.4 21.2 7.8 14.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.0 0.0 39.5 64.9 45.3 42.3 79.2 40.6 30.5 101.4 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D E D C F Approach Vol, veh/h 220 813 2420 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.2 51.5 42.9 Approach LOS D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.8 76.7 49.5 30.0 70.5 49.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.0 49.6 50.3 28.0 60.6 50.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.3 33.0 43.6 26.9 50.9 40.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 9.6 2.2 0.1 8.2 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1285 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 1285 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1353 141 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 2291 239 Arrive On Green 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 4731 493 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 981 513 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1793 Q Serve(g_s), s 31.0 31.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.0 31.0 Prop In Lane 0.27 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1662 868 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.59 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1662 868 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.9 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 2.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.1 14.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.5 30.9 LnGrp LOS C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1794 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.9 Approach LOS D Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CNP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 610 0 0 1075 685 330 630 445 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 610 0 0 1075 685 330 630 445 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 163 663 0 0 1168 0 359 685 484 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %110011111 Cap, veh/h 194 1878 0 0 1520 694 729 615 Arrive On Green 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1591 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 663 0 0 1168 0 359 685 484 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1591 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 13.8 31.5 24.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 13.8 31.5 24.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1878 0 0 1520 694 729 615 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.52 0.94 0.79 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 1878 0 0 1520 698 733 619 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 0.0 21.2 26.6 24.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 22.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 19.6 6.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 5.5 17.1 9.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 21.4 46.2 30.4 LnGrp LOS EAAAC CDC Approach Vol, veh/h 826 1168 A 1528 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.5 23.6 35.4 Approach LOS B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.2 9.0 42.2 38.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0 5.0 37.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.1 27.1 33.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.1 0.0 6.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report CNP PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 2: Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.3 18.7 4.5 12.1 Vehicles Entered 162 238 22 422 Vehicles Exited 162 238 22 422 Hourly Exit Rate 162 238 22 422 Input Volume 161 240 24 425 % of Volume 100 99 93 99 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.3 10.2 3.8 4.9 1.4 3.3 12.1 14.6 13.1 14.0 11.4 10.8 Vehicles Entered 4 10 10 168 1 59 11 198 92 61 214 11 Vehicles Exited 4 10 10 169 1 59 11 198 91 61 214 10 Hourly Exit Rate 4 10 10 169 1 59 11 198 91 61 214 10 Input Volume 5 10 10 170 1 60 10 200 90 60 215 10 % of Volume 80 98 98 100 80 98 107 99 101 101 100 98 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.5 Vehicles Entered 839 Vehicles Exited 838 Hourly Exit Rate 838 Input Volume 842 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report CNP PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.3 0.9 4.5 7.1 7.2 9.4 7.4 7.5 Vehicles Entered 57 6 103 98 204 257 128 853 Vehicles Exited 56 6 103 99 203 257 129 853 Hourly Exit Rate 56 6 103 99 203 257 129 853 Input Volume 60 6 100 100 205 255 130 856 % of Volume 94 92 103 99 99 101 99 100 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 17.4 Vehicles Entered 1337 Vehicles Exited 1337 Hourly Exit Rate 1337 Input Volume 3838 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report CNP PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 2: Movement EB WB B92 SB Directions Served TTTT Maximum Queue (ft) 80 203 45 40 Average Queue (ft) 46 81 2 16 95th Queue (ft) 87 174 25 43 Link Distance (ft) 5 136 184 371 Upstream Blk Time (%) 12 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 14 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 41 57 208 203 Average Queue (ft) 17 33 86 94 95th Queue (ft) 43 47 170 163 Link Distance (ft) 540 5 1103 1825 Upstream Blk Time (%) 21 Queuing Penalty (veh) 48 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 103 141 192 Average Queue (ft) 48 69 88 95th Queue (ft) 82 110 147 Link Distance (ft) 184 938 1398 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 82 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 95 625 180 5 50 165 0 0 400 40 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 95 625 180 5 50 165 0 0 400 40 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1686 3431 3407 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1686 3431 3407 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 108 710 205 6 57 188 0 0 455 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 108 454 467 0 0 245 0 0 493 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.0 44.4 44.4 14.0 28.4 Effective Green, g (s) 14.0 44.4 44.4 14.0 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.14 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 732 748 480 967 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.07 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.62 0.62 0.51 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 39.7 21.3 21.4 39.8 30.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 3.9 3.9 1.2 1.9 Delay (s) 42.0 25.3 25.3 41.0 31.9 Level of Service D C C D C Approach Delay (s) 42.0 25.3 41.0 31.9 Approach LOS D C D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 600 290 35 145 210 10 505 245 Future Volume (veh/h) 600 290 35 145 210 10 505 245 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 423 437 151 219 526 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 500 478 983 1764 614 263 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1292 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 423 437 151 219 526 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1292 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.0 28.9 3.6 3.3 16.8 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.0 28.9 3.6 3.3 16.8 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 500 478 983 1764 614 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.91 0.15 0.12 0.86 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 636 609 983 1764 767 328 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.87 0.87 0.67 0.67 0.57 0.57 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 32.1 23.3 9.3 38.4 33.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 12.6 0.0 0.1 8.8 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 11.6 1.2 1.0 6.8 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.2 44.7 23.3 9.4 47.2 34.9 LnGrp LOS D D C A D C Approach Vol, veh/h 860 370 594 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.1 15.1 45.8 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.1 24.9 63.0 37.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 25 39.4 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 18.8 5.3 30.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.4 0.9 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 230 235 145 275 115 90 40 345 415 560 440 200 Future Volume (vph) 230 235 145 275 115 90 40 345 415 560 440 200 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2946 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2948 1264 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2946 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2948 1264 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) 242 247 153 289 121 95 42 363 437 589 463 211 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 145 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 613 0 289 121 12 42 363 437 389 663 66 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 70 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.4 13.1 13.1 13.1 16.2 16.2 71.7 32.6 32.6 32.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 13.1 13.1 13.1 16.2 16.2 71.7 32.6 32.6 32.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.31 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 684 351 190 161 225 451 893 441 915 392 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.10 0.08 0.03 c0.12 0.33 c0.27 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.82 0.64 0.07 0.19 0.80 0.49 0.88 0.72 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 39.1 44.8 43.7 40.6 38.7 42.9 7.9 34.4 32.2 26.3 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 14.0 14.4 6.8 0.2 0.3 9.8 0.3 21.7 5.0 0.9 Delay (s) 53.1 59.2 50.5 40.8 39.0 52.7 8.2 56.1 37.2 27.2 Level of Service D E D D D D A E D C Approach Delay (s) 53.1 53.7 28.9 41.3 Approach LOS D D C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 45 420 50 265 95 20 10 175 435 45 305 20 Future Volume (vph) 45 420 50 265 95 20 10 175 435 45 305 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2760 1413 1435 1483 2224 1462 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 2760 1413 1435 1456 2224 1390 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 452 54 285 102 22 11 188 468 48 328 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 107 0 3 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 543 0 285 113 0 0 199 361 0 395 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 15 15 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.6 17.3 17.3 22.1 42.9 22.1 Effective Green, g (s) 23.6 17.3 17.3 22.1 39.4 22.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.54 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 892 334 340 440 1200 420 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.20 0.08 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.85 0.33 0.45 0.30 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 20.8 26.6 23.1 20.6 9.2 24.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 18.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 29.1 Delay (s) 23.9 44.6 23.3 20.8 9.3 53.9 Level of Service C D C C A D Approach Delay (s) 23.9 38.2 12.7 53.9 Approach LOS C D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 255 160 310 225 200 205 50 430 240 645 230 Future Volume (veh/h) 175 255 160 310 225 200 205 50 430 240 645 230 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 151 315 0 326 237 0 216 53 0 253 679 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 7 7 7 6 6 6 Cap, veh/h 195 409 559 293 245 547 579 1243 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.34 0.36 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3503 0 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 315 0 326 237 0 216 53 0 253 679 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 0 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.1 11.1 0.0 10.8 15.2 0.0 13.0 1.4 0.0 12.0 16.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.1 11.1 0.0 10.8 15.2 0.0 13.0 1.4 0.0 12.0 16.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 195 409 559 293 245 547 579 1243 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.77 0.58 0.81 0.88 0.10 0.44 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 287 604 628 330 261 686 579 1243 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.4 43.4 0.0 45.5 47.6 0.0 44.1 37.6 0.0 27.2 26.7 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 1.4 0.0 0.9 10.4 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 4.0 0.0 4.6 7.5 0.0 7.1 0.6 0.0 4.8 6.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.6 44.8 0.0 46.4 58.0 0.0 69.6 37.6 0.0 27.3 27.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D E E D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 466 A 563 A 269 A 932 A Approach Delay, s/veh 45.4 51.3 63.3 27.7 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 42.8 19.5 40.1 21.7 23.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 27.5 22.0 22.4 * 21 21.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 18.5 13.1 14.0 3.4 17.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.4 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 405 375 35 175 35 325 705 340 40 135 285 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 405 375 35 175 35 325 705 340 40 135 285 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 177 435 123 38 188 34 349 758 0 43 145 118 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16 Cap, veh/h 228 441 366 96 225 41 1272 1308 202 212 167 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1427 1499 1287 233 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1307 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 177 435 123 38 0 222 349 758 0 43 145 118 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1427 1499 0 1520 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1307 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.2 26.5 8.5 2.6 0.0 14.8 7.6 18.4 0.0 2.6 8.8 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.2 26.5 8.5 2.6 0.0 14.8 7.6 18.4 0.0 2.6 8.8 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 441 366 96 0 266 1272 1308 202 212 167 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.99 0.34 0.40 0.00 0.83 0.27 0.58 0.21 0.68 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 228 441 366 143 0 346 1272 1308 348 366 288 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.81 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 48.1 39.7 47.2 0.0 41.8 22.5 25.9 0.0 41.1 43.8 43.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.6 34.8 0.3 1.0 0.0 10.2 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 28.9 3.2 1.0 0.0 6.3 3.0 7.5 0.0 1.0 3.7 3.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.1 182.6 40.0 48.2 0.0 52.1 22.9 27.2 0.0 41.3 45.3 46.0 LnGrp LOS E F D D A D C C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 735 260 1107 A 306 Approach Delay, s/veh 129.2 51.5 25.9 45.0 Approach LOS F D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.7 31.5 44.5 19.2 23.0 18.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 26.9 26.9 13.0 * 24 23.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 28.5 20.4 13.2 16.8 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.6 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 875 25 705 20 15 20 245 360 30 30 440 125 Future Volume (vph) 875 25 705 20 15 20 245 360 30 30 440 125 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1641 2707 1695 1482 1656 3273 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1641 2707 1695 1482 1656 3273 1626 3252 1455 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) 921 26 742 21 16 21 258 379 32 32 463 132 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 534 0 0 20 0 5 0 0 0 100 Lane Group Flow (vph) 470 477 208 0 37 1 258 406 0 32 463 32 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 4.3 4.3 16.4 31.5 2.9 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 20.8 20.8 4.3 4.3 16.4 31.5 2.9 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.42 0.04 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 457 459 757 98 85 365 1387 63 787 352 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 c0.29 c0.02 c0.16 0.12 0.02 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.03 1.04 0.27 0.38 0.01 0.71 0.29 0.51 0.59 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 26.8 26.8 20.9 33.7 33.0 26.7 14.1 35.0 24.9 21.8 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 49.6 52.5 0.2 2.4 0.1 6.1 0.1 6.3 1.1 0.1 Delay (s) 76.3 79.3 21.1 36.1 33.1 32.9 14.2 41.3 26.0 21.9 Level of Service E E C D C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 52.9 35.0 21.4 25.9 Approach LOS D D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 40.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 880 250 55 390 220 55 30 255 535 380 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 880 250 55 390 220 55 30 255 535 380 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 967 265 60 429 113 60 33 0 588 418 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 96 745 204 72 962 811 74 41 476 445 46 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.53 0.53 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1412 387 1781 1870 1577 1169 643 1585 1781 1667 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 0 1232 60 429 113 93 0 0 588 0 461 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1799 1781 1870 1577 1812 0 1585 1781 0 1838 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 78.0 4.9 21.4 5.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 36.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 0.0 78.0 4.9 21.4 5.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 36.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.09 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 96 0 949 72 962 811 114 0 476 0 491 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.00 1.30 0.83 0.45 0.14 0.81 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.94 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 157 0 949 72 962 811 141 0 476 0 491 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.1 0.0 34.9 70.4 22.6 18.8 68.4 0.0 0.0 54.2 0.0 53.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 0.0 142.0 50.3 0.5 0.1 20.7 0.0 0.0 123.0 0.0 25.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.0 70.6 3.2 9.4 2.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 34.1 0.0 20.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.8 0.0 176.9 120.7 23.1 18.9 89.0 0.0 0.0 177.2 0.0 78.7 LnGrp LOS E A F F C B F A F A E Approach Vol, veh/h 1309 602 93 A 1049 Approach Delay, s/veh 170.9 32.0 89.0 133.9 Approach LOS F C F F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.5 80.5 43.0 9.5 82.5 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 71.0 39.5 6.0 78.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 23.4 41.5 6.9 80.0 9.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 128.3 HCM 6th LOS F Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 1460 190 175 520 10 140 10 290 0 10 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 1460 190 175 520 10 140 10 290 0 10 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 11 1604 169 192 571 11 182 0 55 0 11 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 12 1796 772 373 766 15 280 0 125 0 25 23 Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 24 3622 1558 1781 3657 70 3563 0 1585 0 902 820 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 866 749 169 192 292 290 182 0 55 0 0 21 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1869 1777 1558 1781 1870 1857 1781 0 1585 0 0 1723 Q Serve(g_s), s 35.2 29.7 5.0 7.7 11.8 11.8 4.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 35.2 29.7 5.0 7.7 11.8 11.8 4.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.48 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 927 881 772 373 392 389 280 0 125 0 0 48 V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.85 0.22 0.51 0.74 0.75 0.65 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 949 902 791 794 833 827 1058 0 471 0 0 426 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 17.8 11.5 28.3 29.9 29.9 36.1 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 38.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.5 7.5 0.1 0.8 2.1 2.1 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.9 12.2 1.5 3.2 5.2 5.2 1.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 25.2 11.6 29.1 32.0 32.0 37.1 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 41.0 LnGrp LOS C C B C C C D A D A A D Approach Vol, veh/h 1784 774 237 21 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.5 31.3 36.9 41.0 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.0 9.9 44.2 5.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.8 6.0 37.2 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.0 0.4 2.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1290 480 10 145 510 15 185 205 Future Volume (veh/h) 1290 480 10 145 510 15 185 205 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1344 395 151 531 193 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2132 925 190 2764 326 149 Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.78 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1542 1781 3647 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1344 395 151 531 193 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1542 1781 1777 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 4.3 5.8 2.7 3.8 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 4.3 5.8 2.7 3.8 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2132 925 190 2764 326 149 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.43 0.79 0.19 0.59 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3081 1337 886 5051 1817 834 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 1.5 30.7 2.0 30.6 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.4 2.8 0.0 1.7 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 2.0 2.5 0.3 1.6 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 1.9 33.5 2.1 32.3 32.8 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1739 682 267 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 9.0 32.4 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.5 47.2 59.7 10.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 19.1 4.7 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 23.1 5.6 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 175 490 75 5 340 0 0 345 5 55 150 145 Future Volume (vph) 175 490 75 5 340 0 0 345 5 55 150 145 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3133 1719 3209 1805 1719 3132 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3133 1719 3209 1805 1719 3132 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) 190 533 82 5 370 0 0 375 5 60 163 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 94 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 190 608 0 5 370 0 0 379 0 60 227 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 15 15 15 15 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 34.9 1.0 22.3 22.4 6.3 32.4 Effective Green, g (s) 13.6 35.9 1.0 23.3 22.4 6.3 32.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.45 0.01 0.29 0.28 0.08 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 1416 21 941 509 136 1278 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.19 0.00 0.12 c0.21 c0.03 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.65 0.43 0.24 0.39 0.75 0.44 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 14.8 38.8 22.4 25.9 34.9 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.45 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 0.2 2.0 0.3 5.9 0.8 0.1 Delay (s) 34.3 15.0 58.4 10.7 31.8 35.7 15.1 Level of Service C B E B C D B Approach Delay (s) 19.5 11.3 31.8 18.3 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 150 350 0 80 335 165 5 75 185 0 30 95 Future Volume (vph) 150 350 0 80 335 165 5 75 185 0 30 95 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3169 1770 1472 1552 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3169 1758 1472 1552 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 165 385 0 88 368 181 5 82 203 0 33 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 120 0 60 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 385 0 88 503 0 0 87 83 0 77 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 5 10 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 28.6 7.3 22.8 32.4 32.4 32.4 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 28.6 7.3 23.8 33.4 32.4 33.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.36 0.09 0.30 0.42 0.41 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 1215 155 949 739 600 652 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.11 0.05 c0.16 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.32 0.57 0.53 0.12 0.14 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 30.7 18.3 34.5 23.1 14.0 14.7 14.0 Progression Factor 1.20 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 0.1 2.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 38.9 9.3 37.4 23.7 14.1 14.8 14.1 Level of Service D A D C B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.2 25.6 14.6 14.1 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 935 345 285 450 0 0 0 0 410 425 195 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 935 345 285 450 0 0 0 0 410 425 195 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 984 0 300 474 0 288 648 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 0 2001 817 2432 0 389 816 346 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 984 0 300 474 0 288 648 84 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 13.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 14.6 3.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 13.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 14.6 3.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2001 817 2432 0 389 816 346 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.49 0.37 0.19 0.00 0.74 0.79 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2001 817 2432 0 571 1198 508 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.8 0.0 19.6 0.0 0.0 32.9 33.4 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.8 6.6 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 21.6 0.0 19.7 0.1 0.0 34.1 34.7 29.3 LnGrp LOS A C B A A C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 984 A 774 1020 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.6 7.7 34.1 Approach LOS C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.1 40.0 23.9 66.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 * 35 28.6 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 15.0 16.6 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 8.7 2.8 5.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 18.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 20 25 95 0 55 10 0 480 205 95 135 Future Vol, veh/h 30 20 25 95 0 55 10 0 480 205 95 135 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mvmt Flow 33 22 27 103 0 60 11 0 522 223 103 147 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11.6 13.5 22.5 10.2 HCM LOS B B C B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 40% 63% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 54% 27% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 46% 33% 37% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 250 445 75 150 95 68 68 LT Vol 0 0 30 95 95 0 0 Through Vol 250 240 20 0 0 68 68 RT Vol 0 205 25 55 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 272 484 82 163 103 73 73 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.468 0.788 0.166 0.326 0.202 0.133 0.096 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.195 5.868 7.326 7.206 7.025 6.516 4.715 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 579 614 488 497 509 547 754 Service Time 3.955 3.627 5.107 4.978 4.797 4.288 2.486 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.47 0.788 0.168 0.328 0.202 0.133 0.097 HCM Control Delay 14.3 27.1 11.6 13.5 11.6 10.3 8 HCM Lane LOS B D B B B B A HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 7.6 0.6 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 510 370 10 155 550 0 0 0 0 10 250 Future Volume (vph) 0 510 370 10 155 550 0 0 0 0 10 250 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3128 1535 3227 1603 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3128 1535 3227 1603 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 531 385 10 161 573 0 0 0 0 10 260 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 778 0 0 155 589 0 0 0 0 0 140 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 23.0 21.7 21.7 11.6 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 21.7 21.7 11.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1016 470 989 262 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.10 c0.18 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.77 0.33 0.60 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 21.5 18.9 20.8 27.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.5 0.4 1.0 2.1 Delay (s) 25.0 19.4 21.8 29.2 Level of Service C B C C Approach Delay (s) 25.0 21.3 0.0 Approach LOS C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.8 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 180 Future Volume (vph) 10 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1612 1509 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1612 1509 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 10 188 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 35 Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 153 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% Turn Type NA custom Protected Phases 4 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 34.6 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 34.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 737 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 27.1 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.1 Delay (s) 29.1 10.4 Level of Service C B Approach Delay (s) 21.7 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 220 540 0 0 230 135 420 0 415 120 0 65 Future Volume (vph) 220 540 0 0 230 135 420 0 415 120 0 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1465 1671 1470 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1465 1671 1470 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 256 628 0 0 267 157 488 0 483 140 0 76 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000127001360067 Lane Group Flow (vph) 256 628 0 0 267 30 0 488 347 140 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.4 33.7 16.8 16.8 31.7 31.7 10.0 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.4 33.7 16.8 16.8 31.7 31.7 10.0 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 462 682 646 283 609 536 192 172 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.36 0.08 c0.08 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.29 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.92 0.41 0.11 0.80 0.65 0.73 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 34.7 25.3 30.7 28.9 24.8 23.0 37.1 34.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 17.6 0.2 0.1 7.1 2.0 11.1 0.0 Delay (s) 36.1 42.9 30.9 28.9 31.8 25.0 48.2 34.3 Level of Service D D C C C C D C Approach Delay (s) 41.0 30.2 28.4 43.3 Approach LOS DCCD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.9 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 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 470 1055 70 25 735 120 150 110 40 175 85 175 Future Volume (veh/h) 470 1055 70 25 735 120 150 110 40 175 85 175 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 490 1099 69 26 766 110 156 115 42 182 89 182 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 373 1609 101 79 995 143 92 357 130 257 93 795 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3367 211 1767 3087 443 1095 1286 470 683 334 1618 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 490 575 593 26 437 439 156 0 157 271 0 182 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1816 1767 1763 1768 1095 0 1756 1018 0 1618 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.0 27.7 27.7 1.3 20.1 20.1 1.0 0.0 6.4 17.7 0.0 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.0 27.7 27.7 1.3 20.1 20.1 25.0 0.0 6.4 24.0 0.0 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.27 0.67 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 868 79 568 570 92 0 488 350 0 795 V/C Ratio(X) 1.31 0.68 0.68 0.33 0.77 0.77 1.70 0.00 0.32 0.78 0.00 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 868 98 568 570 92 0 488 350 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.9 31.5 31.5 41.7 27.5 27.5 44.9 0.0 25.8 35.3 0.0 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 155.0 3.4 3.3 0.6 6.4 6.4 357.6 0.0 0.1 8.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 25.0 13.7 14.1 0.6 9.1 9.1 11.2 0.0 2.7 6.6 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 196.9 34.9 34.8 42.3 33.9 33.9 402.6 0.0 25.9 43.3 0.0 13.3 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCFACDAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1658 902 313 453 Approach Delay, s/veh 82.7 34.1 213.6 31.3 Approach LOS F C F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 22.1 26.0 3.3 29.7 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 74.9 HCM 6th LOS E Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 525 0 795 0 1335 325 0 2420 315 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 525 0 795 0 1335 325 0 2420 315 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1515 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1515 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 0 541 0 820 0 1376 335 0 2495 325 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 144 0 0 90 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 541 0 792 0 1376 191 0 2495 235 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)20 15 15 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 42.7 68.3 68.3 86.9 86.9 Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 39.2 68.3 68.3 86.9 86.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.33 0.57 0.57 0.72 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 682 901 2866 838 3646 1097 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.29 0.27 c0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.88 0.48 0.23 0.68 0.21 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 38.2 15.3 12.8 9.0 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.03 2.08 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.9 9.5 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.4 Delay (s)51.5 47.6 16.2 27.0 10.1 5.9 Level of Service D D B C B A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 49.1 18.4 9.6 Approach LOS A D B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 325 0 400 00001340 550 0 1820 1125 Future Volume (vph) 325 0 400 00001340 550 0 1820 1125 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.96 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1480 1490 4616 5036 1467 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1480 1490 4616 5036 1467 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) 346 0 426 00001426 585 0 1936 1197 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 31 31 00000000242 Lane Group Flow (vph) 270 224 216 00002011 0 0 1936 955 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 15 15 15 15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 17.6 17.6 93.4 93.4 93.4 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.6 17.6 93.4 93.4 93.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.78 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 217 218 3592 3919 1141 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.15 0.44 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 c0.65 v/c Ratio 1.11 1.03 0.99 0.56 0.49 0.84 Uniform Delay, d1 51.2 51.2 51.1 5.2 4.8 8.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.23 0.75 6.79 Incremental Delay, d2 89.2 70.1 58.4 0.5 0.3 5.7 Delay (s) 140.4 121.3 109.5 12.1 3.9 63.2 Level of Service F F F B A E Approach Delay (s) 124.2 0.0 12.1 26.6 Approach LOS F A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 255 495 200 215 325 155 375 1285 215 125 250 1055 Future Volume (vph) 255 495 200 215 325 155 375 1285 215 125 250 1055 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1752 3505 1482 3400 3290 3400 5036 1494 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 1482 3400 3290 3400 5036 1494 3400 5036 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) 268 521 211 226 342 163 395 1353 226 132 263 1111 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 81 0 51 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 268 521 130 226 454 0 395 1353 158 0 395 1111 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 40 40 25 15 25 25 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 34.7 34.7 9.4 25.5 14.6 49.0 49.0 10.7 44.6 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 34.7 34.7 9.4 25.5 14.6 49.0 49.0 10.7 44.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.21 0.12 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 1013 428 266 699 413 2056 610 303 1871 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.15 0.07 c0.14 c0.12 c0.27 c0.12 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.51 0.30 0.85 0.65 0.96 0.66 0.26 1.30 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 49.2 35.6 33.2 54.6 43.2 52.4 28.7 23.5 54.6 30.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.94 Incremental Delay, d2 31.3 0.2 0.1 20.8 1.6 32.7 1.7 1.0 154.9 1.1 Delay (s) 80.5 35.8 33.4 75.4 44.7 85.0 30.4 24.5 209.0 29.7 Level of Service F D C E D F C C F C Approach Delay (s) 47.3 54.2 40.7 69.3 Approach LOS D D D E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 52.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 95 130 65 160 80 335 30 70 1130 375 55 555 Future Volume (veh/h) 95 130 65 160 80 335 30 70 1130 375 55 555 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 137 40 126 143 151 74 1189 154 584 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 193 304 95 224 407 336 95 1721 529 616 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 637 1387 431 1177 1856 1529 1767 5066 1559 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 130 0 147 126 143 151 74 1189 154 584 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 868 0 1588 1177 1856 1529 1767 1689 1559 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.5 0.0 9.6 12.4 7.8 10.3 5.0 24.3 8.7 38.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.4 0.0 9.6 22.0 7.8 10.3 5.0 24.3 8.7 38.6 Prop In Lane 0.77 0.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 244 0 348 224 407 336 95 1721 529 616 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.42 0.56 0.35 0.45 0.78 0.69 0.29 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 328 0 463 309 541 446 177 1721 529 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.9 0.0 40.3 49.7 39.6 40.6 56.1 34.2 29.0 38.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.8 2.2 0.5 0.9 13.1 2.3 1.4 21.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 3.9 3.8 3.6 4.0 2.6 10.3 3.5 20.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.7 0.0 41.1 51.9 40.1 41.5 69.2 36.5 30.4 59.3 LnGrp LOS D A D D D D E D C E Approach Vol, veh/h 277 420 1417 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.6 44.2 37.5 Approach LOS D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.4 80.5 30.0 44.8 45.2 30.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 61.9 35.0 47.0 26.9 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 19.8 24.0 40.6 26.3 21.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 15.0 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1360 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 1360 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1432 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 Cap, veh/h 3148 145 Arrive On Green 0.63 0.63 Sat Flow, veh/h 4962 229 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 975 523 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1813 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.8 17.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.8 17.8 Prop In Lane 0.13 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2143 1150 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2143 1150 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.3 11.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 7.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 12.6 LnGrp LOS B B Approach Vol, veh/h 2082 Approach Delay, s/veh 25.4 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 325 1015 0 0 615 370 130 235 560 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 325 1015 0 0 615 370 130 235 560 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 335 1046 0 0 634 0 134 398 410 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 1153 2134 0 0 750 514 540 457 Arrive On Green 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 335 1046 0 0 634 0 134 398 410 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 5.2 17.3 22.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 5.2 17.3 22.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1153 2134 0 0 750 514 540 457 V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.26 0.74 0.90 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1153 2134 0 0 750 614 644 546 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 24.6 28.9 30.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.1 2.7 14.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 2.1 7.8 9.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 49.4 0.0 24.7 31.7 44.9 LnGrp LOS B A A A D C C D Approach Vol, veh/h 1381 634 A 942 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.1 49.4 36.4 Approach LOS A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 59.0 35.0 24.0 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.0 26.0 * 19 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 5.6 17.9 24.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 13.5 0.6 0.6 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 5:00 pm 05/01/2020 CPP AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report CPP AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Train & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.9 9.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicles Entered 233 124 23 380 Vehicles Exited 233 124 23 380 Hourly Exit Rate 233 124 23 380 Input Volume 236 128 24 387 % of Volume 99 97 97 98 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.2 11.2 4.3 4.2 5.1 3.1 10.7 12.7 11.4 12.5 9.7 10.0 Vehicles Entered 20 17 10 36 10 70 5 196 102 114 96 19 Vehicles Exited 20 17 10 37 10 70 5 195 103 113 97 19 Hourly Exit Rate 20 17 10 37 10 70 5 195 103 113 97 19 Input Volume 20 15 10 40 10 70 5 195 100 120 100 20 % of Volume 101 111 98 92 98 100 100 100 103 94 97 96 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 10.1 Vehicles Entered 695 Vehicles Exited 696 Hourly Exit Rate 696 Input Volume 705 % of Volume 99 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report CPP AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.3 5.2 8.1 8.4 7.2 5.0 7.4 Vehicles Entered 124 0 108 82 274 162 32 782 Vehicles Exited 124 0 108 82 273 162 32 781 Hourly Exit Rate 124 0 108 82 273 162 32 781 Input Volume 130 0 105 85 275 165 35 796 % of Volume 95 0 103 96 99 98 91 98 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 14.5 Vehicles Entered 1173 Vehicles Exited 1173 Hourly Exit Rate 1173 Input Volume 3398 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report CPP AM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 1: Train & Scott Street Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 87 106 44 Average Queue (ft) 57 31 16 95th Queue (ft) 83 84 45 Link Distance (ft) 4 139 475 Upstream Blk Time (%) 14 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 56 64 215 176 Average Queue (ft) 26 34 80 82 95th Queue (ft) 49 50 162 140 Link Distance (ft) 525 4 1115 1863 Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 136 166 121 Average Queue (ft) 65 84 59 95th Queue (ft) 111 133 97 Link Distance (ft) 184 938 791 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 43 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 90 390 370 5 130 460 0 0 345 110 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 90 390 370 5 130 460 0 0 345 110 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 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 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1739 3489 3279 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1739 3489 3279 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 99 429 407 5 143 505 0 0 379 121 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 99 386 455 0 0 648 0 0 431 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.5 11.9 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 12.4 12.4 13.1 12.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 410 404 431 914 819 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.19 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.24 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.96 1.06 0.71 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 14.5 18.5 18.8 16.7 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 34.9 58.8 2.7 0.6 Delay (s) 15.0 53.4 77.6 19.4 16.8 Level of Service B D E B B Approach Delay (s) 15.0 66.5 19.4 16.8 Approach LOS B E B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 415 230 25 325 460 10 970 510 Future Volume (veh/h) 415 230 25 325 460 10 970 510 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 536 0 346 489 1032 249 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 623 286 1214 2256 862 381 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.40 0.72 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3156 1449 3061 3230 3230 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 536 0 346 489 1032 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1391 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.4 0.0 7.7 5.2 27.4 15.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.4 0.0 7.7 5.2 27.4 15.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 623 286 1214 2256 862 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.28 0.22 1.20 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 915 420 1214 2256 862 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.09 0.09 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.8 0.0 20.5 4.8 36.3 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 89.6 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 0.0 2.7 1.4 20.9 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.6 0.0 20.6 4.9 125.9 32.9 LnGrp LOS D A C A F C Approach Vol, veh/h 536 835 1281 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 11.4 107.8 Approach LOS D B F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 44.3 32.0 76.3 23.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 * 27 52.4 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 29.4 7.2 18.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 2.1 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.3 HCM 6th LOS E Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 215 65 90 820 270 330 75 580 190 195 535 145 Future Volume (vph) 215 65 90 820 270 330 75 580 190 195 535 145 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2905 3060 1660 1381 1547 3094 1384 1408 2948 1309 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2905 3060 1660 1381 1547 3094 1384 1408 2948 1309 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) 222 67 93 845 278 340 77 598 196 201 552 149 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 27 0 0 0 258 0 0 0 0 0 112 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 355 0 845 278 82 77 598 196 133 620 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 95 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.6 29.1 29.1 29.1 21.1 21.1 89.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 21.6 29.1 29.1 29.1 21.1 21.1 89.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 522 742 402 334 272 544 1032 346 724 321 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 c0.28 0.17 0.05 c0.19 0.14 0.09 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.68 1.14 0.69 0.25 0.28 1.10 0.19 0.38 0.86 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 45.5 41.4 36.6 42.9 49.5 4.5 37.7 43.2 35.1 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 2.8 78.3 5.1 0.4 0.4 68.5 0.1 3.2 12.4 0.7 Delay (s) 48.7 123.8 46.4 37.0 43.3 118.0 4.6 40.9 55.7 35.8 Level of Service D F D D D F A D E D Approach Delay (s) 48.7 88.9 85.9 50.2 Approach LOS D F F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 74.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 40 425 270 35 25 265 435 50 290 50 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 40 425 270 35 25 265 435 50 290 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 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2722 1413 1451 1481 2224 1436 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.69 Satd. Flow (perm) 2722 1413 1451 1337 2224 1002 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 226 43 457 290 38 27 285 468 54 312 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 0 0 5 0 0 0 185 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 303 0 457 323 0 0 312 283 0 414 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 15 25 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 32.7 32.7 23.8 60.0 23.8 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 32.2 32.2 22.8 54.5 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.61 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 695 505 519 338 1346 253 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.32 0.22 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.90 0.62 0.92 0.21 1.64 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 27.4 23.9 32.7 8.0 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 19.2 1.7 29.5 0.0 303.7 Delay (s) 30.0 46.7 25.5 62.3 8.1 337.3 Level of Service C D C E A F Approach Delay (s) 30.0 37.8 29.7 337.3 Approach LOS C D C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 88.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 245 215 870 300 430 125 20 260 185 885 195 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 245 215 870 300 430 125 20 260 185 885 195 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 300 229 0 916 316 0 132 21 0 195 932 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 6 6 6 6 6 15 15 15 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 526 276 992 521 146 651 349 1119 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.09 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.32 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3450 1811 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 300 229 0 916 316 0 132 21 0 195 932 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.7 14.7 0.0 30.9 18.1 0.0 9.8 0.6 0.0 11.9 29.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.7 14.7 0.0 30.9 18.1 0.0 9.8 0.6 0.0 11.9 29.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 526 276 992 521 146 651 349 1119 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.83 0.92 0.61 0.90 0.03 0.56 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 632 332 1018 534 146 651 349 1119 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.2 49.3 0.0 41.5 36.9 0.0 54.0 38.3 0.0 43.4 38.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 9.3 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.0 45.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 7.4 0.0 13.4 8.1 0.0 5.8 0.3 0.0 5.2 12.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.5 58.7 0.0 43.1 37.1 0.0 99.4 38.3 0.0 44.0 38.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS D E D D F D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 529 A 1232 A 153 A 1127 A Approach Delay, s/veh 52.3 41.5 91.0 39.6 Approach LOS D D F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 43.0 22.9 28.6 29.4 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 33.5 22.0 20.0 * 25 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 31.4 16.7 13.9 2.6 32.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 170 400 110 425 30 495 300 110 20 420 730 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 170 400 110 425 30 495 300 110 20 420 730 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 181 149 117 452 28 527 319 0 21 447 591 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 8 8 8 6 6 6 9 9 9 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 146 422 354 159 415 26 712 732 486 510 410 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1471 1725 1683 104 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1481 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 181 149 117 0 480 527 319 0 21 447 591 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1471 1725 0 1787 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1481 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 9.1 9.0 6.9 0.0 25.4 15.7 8.6 0.0 0.9 24.3 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 9.1 9.0 6.9 0.0 25.4 15.7 8.6 0.0 0.9 24.3 29.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 422 354 159 0 443 712 732 486 510 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.43 0.42 0.74 0.00 1.08 0.74 0.44 0.04 0.88 1.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 431 356 164 0 432 726 747 486 510 410 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.0 35.3 33.7 46.4 0.0 39.5 38.3 35.5 0.0 27.8 36.2 37.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.4 0.5 13.4 0.0 66.9 6.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 15.2 211.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 11.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 6.8 3.2 3.6 0.0 19.5 6.8 3.6 0.0 0.4 12.9 34.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 47.6 34.2 59.8 0.0 106.4 44.3 37.1 0.0 27.8 51.4 249.5 LnGrp LOS D D C E A F D D C D F Approach Vol, veh/h 410 597 846 A 1059 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 97.3 41.6 161.5 Approach LOS D F D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 29.4 28.0 13.0 30.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 25.4 22.4 10.0 25.4 29.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.9 11.1 17.7 6.7 27.4 31.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 96.7 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 450 30 310 40 50 35 10 405 395 50 25 30 Future Volume (vph) 450 30 310 40 50 35 10 405 395 50 25 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 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 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1631 2682 1753 1467 1703 3304 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1631 2682 1753 1467 1703 3304 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 469 31 323 42 52 36 10 422 411 52 26 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 259 0 0 30 0 0 8 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 239 261 64 0 94 6 0 432 455 0 0 57 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 35 35 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 16.2 16.2 20.7 35.3 7.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 16.2 16.2 20.7 35.3 7.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.39 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 318 321 528 311 260 386 1277 130 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.16 c0.05 c0.25 0.14 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.81 0.12 0.30 0.02 1.12 0.36 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 35.0 30.1 32.6 31.0 35.3 19.9 40.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.6 14.5 0.1 0.6 0.0 82.2 0.2 2.4 Delay (s) 44.2 49.5 30.2 33.2 31.1 117.5 20.1 42.6 Level of Service D D C C C F C D Approach Delay (s) 40.4 32.6 67.1 Approach LOS D C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 91.3 Sum of lost time (s) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 695 255 Future Volume (vph) 695 255 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1481 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1481 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 724 266 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 203 Lane Group Flow (vph) 724 63 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.6 21.6 Effective Green, g (s) 21.6 21.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 805 350 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.90 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 33.8 27.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.8 0.2 Delay (s) 46.6 28.0 Level of Service D C Approach Delay (s) 41.7 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 375 20 95 710 805 100 95 275 240 115 85 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 375 20 95 710 805 100 95 275 240 115 85 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 383 18 97 724 611 102 97 0 245 117 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 87 777 37 113 848 701 118 112 294 184 106 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.44 0.43 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1786 84 1795 1885 1559 942 896 1598 1795 1125 644 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 0 401 97 724 611 199 0 0 245 0 184 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1870 1795 1885 1559 1838 0 1598 1795 0 1769 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 11.6 4.0 25.8 26.6 8.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 7.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 11.6 4.0 25.8 26.6 8.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 7.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 0.36 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 87 0 814 113 848 701 230 0 294 0 290 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.49 0.86 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 132 0 832 187 897 742 252 0 538 0 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.1 0.0 15.3 34.8 18.4 18.7 32.2 0.0 0.0 30.4 0.0 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.7 9.6 8.1 11.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 4.7 2.0 11.5 10.3 4.8 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 3.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.0 0.0 15.9 44.4 26.6 29.7 54.9 0.0 0.0 32.8 0.0 30.1 LnGrp LOS D A B D C C D A C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 457 1432 199 A 429 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.6 29.1 54.9 31.6 Approach LOS B C D C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 37.8 16.3 8.7 36.7 13.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 35.2 23.0 8.3 32.9 10.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 28.6 11.9 6.0 13.6 10.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 780 105 510 1215 0 390 0 220 0 10 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 10 780 105 510 1215 0 390 0 220 0 10 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 788 54 515 1227 0 413 0 40 0 10 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 12 1021 447 677 1421 0 511 0 225 0 18 14 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.02 Sat Flow, veh/h 44 3630 1589 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1581 0 959 767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 428 370 54 515 1227 0 413 0 40 0 0 18 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1883 1791 1589 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1581 0 0 1727 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.7 16.6 2.2 22.2 26.6 0.0 9.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.7 16.6 2.2 22.2 26.6 0.0 9.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 530 504 447 677 1421 0 511 0 225 0 0 32 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.73 0.12 0.76 0.86 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.56 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 875 832 738 733 1539 0 954 0 420 0 0 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.6 28.8 23.6 24.1 25.5 0.0 36.8 0.0 33.4 0.0 0.0 42.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.6 0.1 4.1 4.9 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.2 6.9 0.8 9.4 11.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.8 30.4 23.7 28.2 30.4 0.0 37.9 0.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 48.5 LnGrp LOS C C C C C A D A C A A D Approach Vol, veh/h 852 1742 453 18 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.7 29.7 37.5 48.5 Approach LOS C C D D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.3 16.6 28.9 5.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.6 11.9 20.7 2.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 0.7 3.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 755 230 190 1150 545 185 Future Volume (veh/h) 755 230 190 1150 545 185 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 778 163 196 1186 562 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 1645 730 241 2391 745 342 Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.67 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1589 1795 3676 3483 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 778 163 196 1186 562 49 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1589 1795 1791 1742 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 1.4 7.2 11.1 10.2 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 1.4 7.2 11.1 10.2 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1645 730 241 2391 745 342 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.22 0.81 0.50 0.75 0.14 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3289 1459 931 5359 1909 876 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 1.4 28.4 5.6 24.9 21.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 2.5 0.2 1.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.5 1.2 3.0 2.6 4.1 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.9 1.6 30.9 5.8 26.5 21.7 LnGrp LOS B A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 941 1382 611 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.0 9.4 26.1 Approach LOS B A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 35.0 49.1 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 12.1 13.1 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 10.2 18.2 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 105 510 85 0 650 0 0 230 0 220 395 265 Future Volume (vph) 105 510 85 0 650 0 0 230 0 220 395 265 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3217 3303 1863 1770 3255 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3217 3303 1863 1770 3255 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 111 537 89 0 684 0 0 242 0 232 416 279 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 618 0 0 684 0 0 242 0 232 608 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 50 20 20 25 25 40 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.3 39.5 27.5 17.0 15.8 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 8.3 40.5 28.5 17.0 15.8 36.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.49 0.34 0.20 0.19 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 1562 1128 379 335 1424 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.19 c0.21 c0.13 c0.13 0.19 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.63 0.40 0.61 0.64 0.69 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 13.7 22.8 30.4 31.5 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 0.2 0.8 3.5 4.9 0.2 Delay (s) 41.4 13.8 10.4 33.9 36.5 16.4 Level of Service D B B C D B Approach Delay (s) 18.0 10.4 33.9 21.4 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 140 545 0 195 575 90 10 0 200 0 40 210 Future Volume (vph) 140 545 0 195 575 90 10 0 200 0 40 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.98 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.87 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3389 1736 1516 1577 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3389 952 1516 1577 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 144 562 0 201 593 93 10 0 206 0 41 216 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 116 0 119 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 562 0 201 676 0 0 10 90 0 138 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.2 21.4 14.4 24.6 36.5 36.5 36.5 Effective Green, g (s) 11.2 21.4 14.4 25.6 37.5 36.5 37.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.26 0.17 0.31 0.45 0.44 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 233 890 299 1040 428 663 709 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.16 c0.12 c0.20 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.63 0.67 0.65 0.02 0.14 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 34.1 27.5 32.3 25.0 12.8 14.0 13.8 Progression Factor 1.03 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 1.3 4.6 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 38.4 27.6 36.9 26.5 12.8 14.1 14.0 Level of Service D C D C B B B Approach Delay (s) 29.8 28.9 14.1 14.0 Approach LOS C C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 580 205 455 975 0 0 0 0 220 150 325 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 580 205 455 975 0 0 0 0 220 150 325 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 637 0 500 1071 0 161 323 60 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 0 1037 1845 2840 0 225 473 200 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 1810 3800 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 637 0 500 1071 0 161 323 60 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 7.3 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 7.3 3.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1037 1845 2840 0 225 473 200 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.61 0.27 0.38 0.00 0.71 0.68 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1037 1845 2840 0 362 760 322 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.9 37.7 35.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.4 3.4 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 39.4 38.4 36.1 LnGrp LOS A D A A A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 637 A 1571 544 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 0.2 38.4 Approach LOS D A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.8 22.0 15.2 74.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 * 17 17.6 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 12.1 9.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 2.2 1.1 15.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 32.6 Intersection LOS D Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 20 25 250 0 100 15 0 395 150 145 720 Future Vol, veh/h 35 20 25 250 0 100 15 0 395 150 145 720 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 36 20 26 255 0 102 15 0 403 153 148 735 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 15.2 47.8 36.4 25.7 HCM LOS C E E D Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 44% 71% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 57% 25% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 43% 31% 29% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 213 348 80 350 145 360 360 LT Vol 0 0 35 250 145 0 0 Through Vol 213 198 20 0 0 360 360 RT Vol 0 150 25 100 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 217 355 82 357 148 367 367 Geometry Grp 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.541 0.854 0.22 0.87 0.348 0.811 0.628 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.989 8.673 9.717 8.773 8.468 7.95 6.154 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 401 418 370 414 426 456 588 Service Time 6.741 6.426 7.472 6.492 6.193 5.674 3.877 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.541 0.849 0.222 0.862 0.347 0.805 0.624 HCM Control Delay 21.9 45.2 15.2 47.8 15.7 36.8 18.7 HCM Lane LOS C E C E C E C HCM 95th-tile Q 3.1 8.3 0.8 8.7 1.5 7.5 4.4 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 520 505 40 455 825 0 0 0 0 185 0 Future Volume (vph) 0 520 505 40 455 825 0 0 0 0 185 0 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 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3216 1595 3328 1665 1665 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3216 1595 3328 1665 1665 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) 0 547 532 42 479 868 0 0 0 0 195 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 910 0 0 339 1050 0 0 0 0 97 98 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 9.6 9.6 Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 10.1 10.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1128 559 1167 226 226 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 0.21 c0.32 0.06 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.61 0.90 0.43 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 21.8 19.8 22.8 29.4 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.9 9.4 1.3 1.3 Delay (s) 26.1 21.7 32.2 30.7 30.7 Level of Service C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 26.1 29.7 0.0 19.0 Approach LOS C C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 335 Future Volume (vph) 335 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 353 RTOR Reduction (vph) 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 341 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type custom Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.6 Effective Green, g (s) 36.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 774 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 Delay (s) 12.5 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 255 480 0 0 735 370 500 0 490 110 0 80 Future Volume (vph) 255 480 0 0 735 370 500 0 490 110 0 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 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1507 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1507 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 274 516 0 0 790 398 538 0 527 118 0 86 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000294001900078 Lane Group Flow (vph) 274 516 0 0 790 104 0 538 337 118 0 8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 42.0 24.3 24.3 31.5 31.5 9.6 9.6 Effective Green, g (s) 13.7 42.5 24.8 24.8 31.0 31.0 9.1 9.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 487 820 909 395 568 508 166 149 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.28 c0.23 c0.07 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.31 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.63 0.87 0.26 0.95 0.66 0.71 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 37.7 20.0 33.3 27.7 31.0 27.3 41.5 38.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 1.1 8.6 0.1 24.8 2.5 11.3 0.1 Delay (s) 39.2 21.1 41.9 27.8 55.8 29.8 52.8 38.9 Level of Service D C D C E C D D Approach Delay (s) 27.4 37.2 43.0 46.9 Approach LOS CDDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 37.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 94.6 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 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 275 670 135 75 1195 190 105 130 50 175 130 475 Future Volume (veh/h) 275 670 135 75 1195 190 105 130 50 175 130 475 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 296 720 126 81 1285 204 113 140 54 188 140 511 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 622 2210 387 104 1321 208 72 369 142 219 121 1039 Arrive On Green 0.35 0.73 0.72 0.06 0.43 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3022 529 1781 3073 484 781 1273 491 559 416 1597 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 296 423 423 81 739 750 113 0 194 328 0 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1774 1781 1777 1780 781 0 1764 976 0 1597 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 8.4 8.5 4.5 40.6 41.5 0.0 0.0 8.8 20.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 8.4 8.5 4.5 40.6 41.5 29.0 0.0 8.8 29.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.28 0.57 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 622 1299 1297 104 764 765 72 0 511 340 0 1039 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.33 0.33 0.78 0.97 0.98 1.57 0.00 0.38 0.97 0.00 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 622 1299 1297 160 764 765 72 0 511 340 0 1039 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.00 0.89 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4 4.7 4.8 46.5 27.8 28.2 50.0 0.0 28.3 41.3 0.0 9.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.2 14.1 16.4 312.7 0.0 0.2 36.8 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 2.5 2.5 2.0 19.1 20.0 8.1 0.0 3.7 11.7 0.0 5.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.6 5.3 5.4 48.6 41.9 44.6 362.7 0.0 28.5 78.1 0.0 9.5 LnGrp LOS C A A D D D F A C E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1142 1570 307 839 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 43.6 151.5 36.3 Approach LOS B D F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.0 47.0 33.0 9.8 77.1 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 42 29.0 9.0 49.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 43.5 31.0 6.5 10.5 31.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 490 0 1185 0 2025 435 0 2010 665 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 490 0 1185 0 2025 435 0 2010 665 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1554 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 510 0 1234 0 2109 453 0 2094 693 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 234 0 0 274 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 510 0 1228 0 2109 219 0 2094 419 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 52.6 71.2 69.8 69.8 88.4 88.4 Effective Green, g (s) 52.2 66.9 70.2 70.2 88.8 88.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1206 1255 2403 695 3040 919 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.44 c0.41 0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.98 0.88 0.31 0.69 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 37.4 40.9 36.0 24.9 21.1 17.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.04 2.72 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 20.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 1.6 Delay (s)37.5 61.0 40.4 68.4 22.4 18.7 Level of Service D E D E C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 54.1 45.4 21.5 Approach LOS A D D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 345 0 370 00002115 630 0 1720 780 Future Volume (vph) 345 0 370 00002115 630 0 1720 780 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1515 1519 4757 5136 1505 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1515 1519 4757 5136 1505 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) 363 0 389 00002226 663 0 1811 821 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 26 00000000199 Lane Group Flow (vph) 283 217 200 00002889 0 0 1811 622 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 10 20 20 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.8 27.8 27.8 113.2 113.2 113.2 Effective Green, g (s) 28.3 28.3 28.3 113.7 113.7 113.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.76 0.76 0.76 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 320 285 286 3605 3893 1140 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.14 c0.61 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.41 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.76 0.70 0.80 0.47 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 59.3 57.7 56.9 11.2 6.8 7.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.16 0.22 4.24 Incremental Delay, d2 23.3 10.3 5.9 1.4 0.3 1.5 Delay (s) 82.6 68.0 62.8 25.5 1.8 33.3 Level of Service F E E C A C Approach Delay (s) 71.9 0.0 25.5 11.6 Approach LOS E A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 345 435 335 315 465 290 345 1430 105 80 365 1305 Future Volume (vph) 345 435 335 315 465 290 345 1430 105 80 365 1305 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 4.6 4.6 3.0 3.2 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95 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 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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) 1787 3574 1535 3467 3297 3467 5136 1523 3467 5136 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 3574 1535 3467 3297 3467 5136 1523 3467 5136 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) 367 463 356 335 495 309 367 1521 112 85 388 1388 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 102 0 66 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 367 463 254 335 738 0 367 1521 51 0 473 1388 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 35 20 20 35 5 20 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.5 47.5 47.5 17.2 34.6 16.7 49.4 49.4 19.7 51.9 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 48.0 48.0 17.7 35.1 17.2 49.9 49.9 20.2 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.23 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 5.1 5.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 381 1143 491 409 771 397 1708 506 466 1794 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.13 0.10 c0.22 0.11 c0.30 c0.14 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.41 0.52 0.82 0.96 0.92 0.89 0.10 1.02 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 58.4 39.8 41.6 64.6 56.7 65.8 47.5 34.5 64.9 43.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.03 Incremental Delay, d2 36.1 0.1 0.4 11.5 22.1 26.6 7.4 0.4 43.1 3.0 Delay (s) 94.5 39.9 41.9 76.1 78.9 92.4 54.9 34.9 114.6 48.0 Level of Service F D D E E F D C F D Approach Delay (s) 57.4 78.0 60.7 62.0 Approach LOS E E E E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 63.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 100.7% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 245 Future Volume (vph) 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1566 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1566 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph) 261 RTOR Reduction (vph) 60 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 51.9 Effective Green, g (s) 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 547 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 36.4 Progression Factor 1.07 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 Delay (s) 40.8 Level of Service D Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 115 65 70 375 215 430 105 230 1900 330 95 275 Future Volume (veh/h) 115 65 70 375 215 430 105 230 1900 330 95 275 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 121 68 47 310 344 205 242 2000 235 289 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cap, veh/h 188 295 204 380 595 485 259 2248 693 301 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.44 0.44 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 443 935 646 1266 1885 1536 1795 5147 1587 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 121 0 115 310 344 205 242 2000 235 289 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 443 0 1581 1266 1885 1536 1795 1716 1587 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.6 0.0 8.0 35.9 22.9 15.8 20.0 53.7 14.7 24.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 43.5 0.0 8.0 43.9 22.9 15.8 20.0 53.7 14.7 24.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188 0 499 380 595 485 259 2248 693 301 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.23 0.82 0.58 0.42 0.94 0.89 0.34 0.96 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 203 0 527 402 628 512 455 2248 693 323 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.2 0.0 37.8 54.1 43.0 40.5 63.5 38.9 27.9 61.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 0.0 0.2 11.8 1.2 0.6 16.9 5.8 1.3 38.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 0.0 3.2 12.7 11.0 6.2 10.4 23.6 5.9 14.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.3 0.0 38.1 65.9 44.2 41.1 80.4 44.7 29.3 100.3 LnGrp LOS E A D E D D F D C F Approach Vol, veh/h 236 859 2477 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.1 51.3 46.7 Approach LOS D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.6 73.0 51.3 29.1 69.5 51.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.0 49.6 50.3 28.0 60.6 50.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.0 35.0 45.9 26.0 55.7 45.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 8.9 1.7 0.2 4.4 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 09/28/2020 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1295 145 Future Volume (veh/h) 1295 145 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1363 147 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 2169 234 Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 Sat Flow, veh/h 4713 508 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 992 518 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1790 Q Serve(g_s), s 32.9 33.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.9 33.0 Prop In Lane 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1579 824 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1579 824 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.7 30.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.1 15.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.6 34.4 LnGrp LOS C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1799 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.0 Approach LOS D Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 05/01/2020 CPP PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 155 630 0 0 1085 720 350 600 455 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 155 630 0 0 1085 720 350 600 455 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 168 685 0 0 1179 0 380 652 495 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %110011111 Cap, veh/h 194 1914 0 0 1556 676 710 600 Arrive On Green 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1591 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 168 685 0 0 1179 0 380 652 495 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1591 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 15.1 29.7 25.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 15.1 29.7 25.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1914 0 0 1556 676 710 600 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.56 0.92 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 1914 0 0 1556 698 733 619 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.79 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 22.2 26.7 25.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.5 15.8 8.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 6.1 15.5 10.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 22.6 0.0 22.7 42.5 33.5 LnGrp LOS EAAAC CDC Approach Vol, veh/h 853 1179 A 1527 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.2 22.6 34.7 Approach LOS B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 52.1 9.0 43.1 37.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0 5.0 37.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.3 27.0 31.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.4 0.0 6.7 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report CPP PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 2: Train & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.3 15.1 4.3 9.8 Vehicles Entered 176 237 22 435 Vehicles Exited 176 237 22 435 Hourly Exit Rate 176 237 22 435 Input Volume 172 234 24 429 % of Volume 103 101 93 101 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 5.7 10.2 4.7 4.8 2.3 3.4 10.9 14.0 12.1 13.5 10.5 8.3 Vehicles Entered 8 15 5 111 55 60 10 193 103 57 249 7 Vehicles Exited 8 15 5 111 54 60 11 193 102 57 249 6 Hourly Exit Rate 8 15 5 111 54 60 11 193 102 57 249 6 Input Volume 10 15 5 110 54 60 10 200 95 60 245 5 % of Volume 78 98 100 101 100 100 107 96 107 95 102 120 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.9 Vehicles Entered 873 Vehicles Exited 871 Hourly Exit Rate 871 Input Volume 871 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report CPP PM 08/05/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 6.1 4.3 6.4 6.4 9.3 7.1 7.1 Vehicles Entered 76 107 65 156 232 164 800 Vehicles Exited 76 107 65 155 232 164 799 Hourly Exit Rate 76 107 65 155 232 164 799 Input Volume 75 105 65 155 240 160 800 % of Volume 101 102 100 100 97 103 100 Denied Entry Before 0000000 Denied Entry After 0000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 Total Del/Veh (s) 16.3 Vehicles Entered 1304 Vehicles Exited 1299 Hourly Exit Rate 1299 Input Volume 3756 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 115 650 175 5 55 170 0 0 415 45 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 115 650 175 5 55 170 0 0 415 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 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 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1580 1649 1684 3429 3401 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1580 1649 1684 3429 3401 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 131 739 199 6 62 193 0 0 472 51 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 131 466 478 0 0 256 0 0 515 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)55 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.0 43.4 43.4 15.0 28.4 Effective Green, g (s) 15.0 43.4 43.4 15.0 28.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 237 715 730 514 965 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.07 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.28 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.65 0.65 0.50 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 39.4 22.3 22.4 39.0 30.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 4.6 4.5 1.0 2.1 Delay (s) 42.8 26.9 26.9 40.1 32.3 Level of Service D C C D C Approach Delay (s) 42.8 26.9 40.1 32.3 Approach LOS DCDC Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 31.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 565 310 35 165 210 15 550 245 Future Volume (veh/h) 565 310 35 165 210 15 550 245 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1590 1710 1590 1590 1590 1590 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 415 428 172 219 573 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 9 0 9 9 9 9 Cap, veh/h 491 469 962 1782 654 280 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.59 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1514 1449 2938 3100 3100 1294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 415 428 172 219 573 68 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1514 1449 1469 1510 1510 1294 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.5 28.3 4.2 3.2 18.3 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.5 28.3 4.2 3.2 18.3 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 491 469 962 1782 654 280 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.91 0.18 0.12 0.88 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 636 609 962 1782 767 329 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.86 0.86 0.67 0.67 0.51 0.51 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.5 32.4 24.0 9.1 37.9 32.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 11.9 0.0 0.1 8.6 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.0 11.3 1.4 1.0 7.4 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.2 44.3 24.0 9.2 46.5 33.4 LnGrp LOS D D C A D C Approach Vol, veh/h 843 391 641 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.8 15.7 45.1 Approach LOS D B D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.4 26.2 63.6 36.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 25 39.4 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 20.3 5.2 30.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.3 0.9 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 235 230 160 275 120 95 45 345 380 590 475 200 Future Volume (vph) 235 230 160 275 120 95 45 345 380 590 475 200 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2933 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2949 1264 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2933 2814 1527 1298 1464 2927 1309 1421 2949 1264 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) 247 242 168 289 126 100 47 363 400 621 500 211 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 33 0 0 0 88 00000146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 624 0 289 126 12 47 363 400 410 711 65 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 70 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.7 13.1 13.1 13.1 16.2 16.2 71.4 32.3 32.3 32.3 Effective Green, g (s) 24.7 13.1 13.1 13.1 16.2 16.2 71.4 32.3 32.3 32.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.68 0.31 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 689 351 190 161 225 451 890 437 907 388 v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.10 0.08 0.03 c0.12 0.31 c0.29 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.91 0.82 0.66 0.08 0.21 0.80 0.45 0.94 0.78 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 44.8 43.8 40.6 38.8 42.9 7.7 35.4 33.2 26.5 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 15.2 14.4 8.4 0.2 0.3 9.8 0.3 30.1 6.7 0.9 Delay (s) 54.2 59.2 52.3 40.8 39.1 52.7 8.0 65.4 39.9 27.5 Level of Service D E DDDDAEDC Approach Delay (s) 54.2 53.9 29.8 45.8 Approach LOS DDCD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 44.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 50 430 55 270 110 25 10 155 405 50 290 25 Future Volume (vph) 50 430 55 270 110 25 10 155 405 50 290 25 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.85 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2756 1413 1432 1482 2224 1457 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 Satd. Flow (perm) 2756 1413 1432 1454 2224 1377 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 462 59 290 118 27 11 167 435 54 312 27 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 102 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 563 0 290 134 0 0 178 333 0 390 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 15 15 25 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.6 17.5 17.5 21.9 42.9 21.9 Effective Green, g (s) 23.6 17.5 17.5 21.9 39.4 21.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.54 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 890 338 343 436 1200 413 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.21 0.09 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.86 0.39 0.41 0.28 0.94 Uniform Delay, d1 21.0 26.6 23.3 20.4 9.1 24.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.4 18.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 29.8 Delay (s) 24.4 44.8 23.5 20.6 9.1 54.7 Level of Service C D C C A D Approach Delay (s) 24.4 37.7 12.5 54.7 Approach LOS C D B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 73.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 165 230 170 325 230 230 210 50 425 240 650 295 Future Volume (veh/h) 165 230 170 325 230 230 210 50 425 240 650 295 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1441 1441 1441 1618 1618 1618 1796 1796 1796 1811 1811 1811 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 139 291 0 342 242 0 221 53 0 253 684 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 31 31 31 19 19 19 777666 Cap, veh/h 183 385 565 297 250 559 583 1255 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.00 0.34 0.36 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1372 2881 1221 3083 1618 1372 1711 3503 0 1725 3441 1535 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 139 291 0 342 242 0 221 53 0 253 684 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1372 1441 1221 1541 1618 1372 1711 1706 0 1725 1721 1535 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 10.2 0.0 11.4 15.5 0.0 13.3 1.4 0.0 11.9 16.5 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 10.2 0.0 11.4 15.5 0.0 13.3 1.4 0.0 11.9 16.5 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 183 385 565 297 250 559 583 1255 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.76 0.61 0.82 0.89 0.09 0.43 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 287 604 628 330 261 686 583 1255 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.8 43.8 0.0 45.6 47.6 0.0 44.0 37.3 0.0 26.9 26.4 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 1.1 0.0 1.1 11.2 0.0 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 3.7 0.0 4.8 7.7 0.0 7.4 0.6 0.0 4.8 6.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.1 44.9 0.0 46.7 58.7 0.0 70.5 37.3 0.0 27.1 27.6 0.0 LnGrp LOS D D D E E D C C Approach Vol, veh/h 430 A 584 A 274 A 937 A Approach Delay, s/veh 45.3 51.7 64.1 27.4 Approach LOS D D E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.3 43.2 18.6 40.4 22.1 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 27.5 22.0 22.4 * 21 21.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.3 18.5 12.3 13.9 3.4 17.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 1.2 0.4 0.1 1.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 380 380 40 170 40 385 705 365 45 145 280 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 380 380 40 170 40 385 705 365 45 145 280 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1722 1722 1722 1574 1574 1574 1811 1811 1811 1663 1663 1663 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 161 409 129 43 183 39 414 758 0 48 156 113 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 12 12 12 22 22 22 6 6 6 16 16 16 Cap, veh/h 234 441 366 102 219 47 1247 1283 207 217 171 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1640 1722 1427 1499 1246 266 3346 3532 0 1584 1663 1309 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 161 409 129 43 0 222 414 758 0 48 156 113 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1640 1722 1427 1499 0 1512 1673 1721 0 1584 1663 1309 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.2 24.8 9.0 2.9 0.0 14.9 9.3 18.6 0.0 2.9 9.5 8.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.2 24.8 9.0 2.9 0.0 14.9 9.3 18.6 0.0 2.9 9.5 8.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 441 366 102 0 266 1247 1283 207 217 171 V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.93 0.35 0.42 0.00 0.84 0.33 0.59 0.23 0.72 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 233 441 366 143 0 344 1250 1286 348 366 288 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.7 48.1 39.8 46.9 0.0 41.8 23.6 26.5 0.0 40.9 43.8 43.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.8 22.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 10.5 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.2 1.7 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 73.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 24.1 3.4 1.1 0.0 6.3 3.7 7.6 0.0 1.1 4.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.5 143.7 40.2 48.0 0.0 52.3 24.0 27.7 0.0 41.1 45.5 45.1 LnGrp LOS D F D D A D C C D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 699 265 1172 A 317 Approach Delay, s/veh 103.8 51.6 26.4 44.7 Approach LOS F D C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 31.4 43.8 19.5 23.0 18.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 * 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 26.9 26.9 13.0 * 24 23.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 26.8 20.6 12.2 16.9 11.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.6 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 955 30 710 25 20 20 250 365 35 35 450 130 Future Volume (vph) 955 30 710 25 20 20 250 365 35 35 450 130 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1633 1642 2707 1696 1482 1656 3268 1626 3252 1455 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1633 1642 2707 1696 1482 1656 3268 1626 3252 1455 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) 1005 32 747 26 21 21 263 384 37 37 474 137 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 500 0 0 20 06000104 Lane Group Flow (vph) 513 524 247 0 47 1 263 415 0 37 474 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 20.7 20.7 4.7 4.7 17.1 30.6 4.4 17.9 17.9 Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 20.7 20.7 4.7 4.7 17.1 30.6 4.4 17.9 17.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.41 0.06 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 449 451 745 106 92 376 1329 95 774 346 v/s Ratio Prot 0.31 c0.32 c0.03 c0.16 0.13 0.02 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 1.14 1.16 0.33 0.44 0.01 0.70 0.31 0.39 0.61 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 27.2 27.2 21.7 34.0 33.1 26.7 15.2 34.1 25.6 22.3 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 87.7 94.8 0.3 2.9 0.1 5.6 0.1 2.6 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 114.9 122.1 22.0 36.9 33.1 32.3 15.3 36.7 27.0 22.5 Level of Service F F C D C C B D C C Approach Delay (s) 78.1 35.8 21.8 26.6 Approach LOS E D C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.2 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 15 20 20 65 15 110 20 480 165 90 140 10 Future Volume (vph) 15 20 20 65 15 110 20 480 165 90 140 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.95 0.92 0.97 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1573 1519 1618 1636 Flt Permitted 0.92 0.89 0.99 0.58 Satd. Flow (perm) 1462 1375 1598 968 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) 16 22 22 71 16 120 22 522 179 98 152 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 72 0 0 26 0040 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 47 0 0 135 0 0 697 0 0 257 0 Parking (#/hr)000000000000 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 584 550 639 387 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.10 c0.44 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.25 1.09 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 8.4 9.0 13.5 11.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.1 62.6 8.7 Delay (s) 8.6 10.0 76.1 19.8 Level of Service ABEB Approach Delay (s) 8.6 10.0 76.1 19.8 Approach LOS ABEB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 860 275 60 375 220 60 35 245 505 385 45 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 860 275 60 375 220 60 35 245 505 385 45 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 945 292 66 412 113 66 38 0 555 423 48 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 102 717 222 72 949 800 80 46 473 438 50 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.52 0.52 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1369 423 1781 1870 1577 1150 662 1585 1781 1648 187 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 0 1237 66 412 113 104 0 0 555 0 471 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1792 1781 1870 1577 1813 0 1585 1781 0 1835 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.0 78.0 5.5 20.7 5.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 37.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.0 78.0 5.5 20.7 5.7 8.4 0.0 0.0 39.5 0.0 37.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 0 939 72 949 800 126 0 473 0 487 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 1.32 0.92 0.43 0.14 0.83 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 156 0 939 72 949 800 140 0 473 0 487 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.3 0.0 35.4 71.2 23.2 19.5 68.4 0.0 0.0 54.7 0.0 54.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 150.3 77.4 0.4 0.1 26.9 0.0 0.0 98.6 0.0 32.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 0.0 72.4 4.0 9.1 2.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 21.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 78.0 0.0 185.7 148.6 23.6 19.6 95.3 0.0 0.0 153.3 0.0 86.1 LnGrp LOS E A F F C B F A F A F Approach Vol, veh/h 1319 591 104 A 1026 Approach Delay, s/veh 179.0 36.8 95.3 122.4 Approach LOS F D F F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 80.0 43.0 9.5 82.5 13.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 71.0 39.5 6.0 78.0 11.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 22.7 41.5 7.5 80.0 10.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 129.4 HCM 6th LOS F Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 1395 195 175 505 15 140 15 295 0 15 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 1395 195 175 505 15 140 15 295 0 15 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 1533 174 192 555 16 186 0 60 0 16 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 18 1757 758 369 749 22 285 0 127 0 33 31 Arrive On Green 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 36 3609 1558 1781 3616 104 3563 0 1585 0 888 833 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 831 718 174 192 287 284 186 0 60 0 0 31 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1869 1777 1558 1781 1870 1850 1781 0 1585 0 0 1721 Q Serve(g_s), s 33.0 28.0 5.2 7.7 11.6 11.6 4.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 33.0 28.0 5.2 7.7 11.6 11.6 4.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.48 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 909 865 758 369 387 383 285 0 127 0 0 64 V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.83 0.23 0.52 0.74 0.74 0.65 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 953 906 794 797 837 828 1063 0 473 0 0 428 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 17.8 11.9 28.3 29.9 29.9 35.9 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 38.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 6.2 0.1 0.8 2.1 2.1 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.3 11.3 1.6 3.2 5.1 5.1 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.5 24.0 12.0 29.2 32.0 32.0 36.9 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 40.0 LnGrp LOS C C B CCCDADAAD Approach Vol, veh/h 1723 763 246 31 Approach Delay, s/veh 26.4 31.3 36.7 40.0 Approach LOS CCDD Timer - Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.8 9.9 43.2 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.6 6.1 35.0 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.4 4.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th AWSC 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 20.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 125 130 375 165 45 Future Vol, veh/h 145 125 130 375 165 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Heavy Vehicles, %888888 Mvmt Flow 156 134 140 403 177 48 Number of Lanes 100110 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 14.2 27 11.7 HCM LOS B D B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 26% 54% 0% Vol Thru, % 74% 0% 79% Vol Right, % 0% 46% 21% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 505 270 210 LT Vol 130 145 0 Through Vol 375 0 165 RT Vol 0 125 45 Lane Flow Rate 543 290 226 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.807 0.475 0.353 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.351 5.886 5.627 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 673 610 637 Service Time 3.392 3.936 3.68 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.807 0.475 0.355 HCM Control Delay 27 14.2 11.7 HCM Lane LOS D B B HCM 95th-tile Q 8.3 2.6 1.6 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT NBU NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1215 490 15 145 495 20 185 205 Future Volume (veh/h) 1215 490 15 145 495 20 185 205 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1266 405 151 516 193 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 2089 906 191 2735 332 152 Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.11 0.77 0.10 0.10 Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 1542 1781 3647 3456 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1266 405 151 516 193 74 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1542 1781 1777 1728 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.3 4.3 5.5 2.6 3.6 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.3 4.3 5.5 2.6 3.6 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2089 906 191 2735 332 152 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.45 0.79 0.19 0.58 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3233 1403 930 5300 1907 875 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.8 1.5 29.2 2.1 29.0 28.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.5 2.8 0.0 1.6 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 2.0 2.3 0.3 1.5 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.3 2.0 31.9 2.1 30.6 31.1 LnGrp LOS A A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1671 667 267 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.5 8.9 30.8 Approach LOS A A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 44.4 56.6 10.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 17.3 4.6 5.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 22.1 5.4 0.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 10.2 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 160 565 65 20 325 0 0 290 55 110 155 140 Future Volume (vph) 160 565 65 20 325 0 0 290 55 110 155 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1719 3149 1719 3209 1759 1719 3142 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1719 3149 1719 3209 1759 1719 3142 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) 174 614 71 22 353 0 0 315 60 120 168 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 82 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 174 679 0 22 353 0 0 369 0 120 238 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 15 15 15 15 20 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 31.6 2.4 21.0 23.6 10.9 38.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 32.6 2.4 22.0 23.6 10.9 38.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.39 0.03 0.26 0.28 0.13 0.46 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 268 1232 49 847 498 224 1440 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.22 0.01 0.11 c0.21 c0.07 0.08 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.65 0.55 0.45 0.42 0.74 0.54 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 33.0 19.7 39.8 25.3 27.1 33.8 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.41 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.5 2.3 0.3 5.8 1.2 0.1 Delay (s) 37.0 20.2 58.3 14.4 32.9 35.1 13.3 Level of Service D C E B C D B Approach Delay (s) 23.6 16.9 32.9 19.2 Approach LOS C B C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 235 445 0 80 285 130 10 190 100 0 45 115 Future Volume (vph) 235 445 0 80 285 130 10 190 100 0 45 115 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.99 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 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.89 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1687 3374 1687 3178 1771 1472 1564 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1687 3374 1687 3178 1753 1472 1564 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph) 258 489 0 88 313 143 11 209 110 0 49 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 60 0 67 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 258 489 0 88 413 0 0 220 50 0 108 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 5 10 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 2% 7% 7% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.8 26.3 7.7 21.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 Effective Green, g (s) 12.8 26.3 7.7 22.2 39.2 38.2 39.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.32 0.09 0.27 0.47 0.46 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 259 1065 155 846 824 675 736 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.14 0.05 c0.13 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.03 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.46 0.57 0.49 0.27 0.07 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 35.2 22.8 36.2 25.8 13.4 12.6 12.5 Progression Factor 1.24 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 51.0 0.3 2.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 94.7 13.6 39.0 26.2 13.5 12.7 12.6 Level of Service F B D C B B B Approach Delay (s) 41.6 28.3 13.2 12.6 Approach LOS D C B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.3 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 880 390 290 455 0000400425190 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 880 390 290 455 0000400425190 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 0 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 926 0 305 479 0 281 644 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %011110 111 Cap, veh/h 0 2001 822 2437 0 386 811 344 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5316 1598 3483 3676 0 1795 3770 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 926 0 305 479 0 281 644 79 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1716 1598 1742 1791 0 1795 1885 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 12.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 14.5 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 12.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 14.5 3.7 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2001 822 2437 0 386 811 344 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.46 0.37 0.20 0.00 0.73 0.79 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2001 822 2437 0 571 1198 508 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 20.5 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 32.9 33.4 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 5.6 6.6 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 21.3 0.0 19.6 0.1 0.0 33.8 34.7 29.3 LnGrp LOS A C B A A C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 926 A 784 1004 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 7.7 34.0 Approach LOS C A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 40.0 23.8 66.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.5 * 35 28.6 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 14.1 16.5 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 8.4 2.8 5.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 43 Intersection LOS E Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 35 25 25 125 0 105 15 0 220 390 280 260 Future Vol, veh/h 35 25 25 125 0 105 15 0 220 390 280 260 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 Heavy Vehicles, %444444444444 Mvmt Flow 38 27 27 136 0 114 16 0 239 424 304 283 Number of Lanes 010010002012 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 14.2 20.8 76.6 18 HCM LOS B C F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 41% 54% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 22% 29% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 78% 29% 46% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 125 500 85 230 280 130 130 LT Vol 0 0 35 125 280 0 0 Through Vol 125 110 25 0 0 130 130 RT Vol 0 390 25 105 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 136 543 92 250 304 141 141 Geometry Grp 8877777 Degree of Util (X) 0.293 1.088 0.222 0.557 0.65 0.282 0.211 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.769 7.207 8.938 8.247 7.914 7.399 5.58 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 466 505 404 440 460 489 647 Service Time 5.469 4.907 6.638 5.947 5.614 5.099 3.28 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.292 1.075 0.228 0.568 0.661 0.288 0.218 HCM Control Delay 13.7 92.3 14.2 20.8 24.1 13 9.8 HCM Lane LOS B F B C C B A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 17.3 0.8 3.3 4.5 1.1 0.8 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 500 370 15 160 580 000015260 Future Volume (vph) 0 500 370 15 160 580 000015260 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3125 1535 3227 1603 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3125 1535 3227 1603 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 521 385 16 167 604 000016271 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 142 0000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 764 0 0 166 621 00000151 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5555 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split Split Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 22.0 22.0 12.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.0 22.0 12.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.17 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 996 472 992 273 v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.11 c0.19 c0.09 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.77 0.35 0.63 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 22.0 19.2 21.2 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.6 0.5 1.2 2.4 Delay (s) 25.6 19.7 22.5 29.6 Level of Service C B C C Approach Delay (s) 25.6 21.9 0.0 Approach LOS C C A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.5 Sum of lost time (s) 14.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 230 530 0 0 240 140 435 0 420 125 0 75 Future Volume (vph) 230 530 0 0 240 140 435 0 420 125 0 75 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 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 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3242 1759 3343 1465 1671 1470 1671 1495 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3242 1759 3343 1465 1671 1470 1671 1495 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Adj. Flow (vph) 267 616 0 0 279 163 506 0 488 145 0 87 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000132001370077 Lane Group Flow (vph) 267 616 0 0 279 31 0 506 351 145 0 10 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.7 33.6 16.4 16.4 31.7 31.7 10.2 10.2 Effective Green, g (s) 12.7 33.6 16.4 16.4 31.7 31.7 10.2 10.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 473 679 630 276 608 535 195 175 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.35 0.08 c0.09 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.30 0.24 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.91 0.44 0.11 0.83 0.66 0.74 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 34.6 25.2 31.3 29.3 25.2 23.1 37.1 34.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 15.5 0.2 0.1 9.1 2.2 12.6 0.1 Delay (s) 36.1 40.7 31.4 29.3 34.3 25.3 49.7 34.2 Level of Service D D C C C C D C Approach Delay (s) 39.3 30.7 29.9 43.9 Approach LOS DCCD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 470 1085 75 30 740 125 155 110 45 180 90 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 470 1085 75 30 740 125 155 110 45 180 90 180 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1930 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 490 1130 74 31 771 115 161 115 47 188 94 188 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333333 Cap, veh/h 373 1604 105 79 989 147 80 345 141 252 93 795 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3357 220 1767 3070 458 1088 1241 507 668 334 1618 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 490 593 611 31 443 443 161 0 162 282 0 188 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1814 1767 1763 1765 1088 0 1748 1002 0 1618 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.0 26.6 26.6 1.5 20.5 20.5 0.0 0.0 6.6 18.4 0.0 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.0 26.6 26.6 1.5 20.5 20.5 25.0 0.0 6.6 25.0 0.0 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.29 0.67 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 842 867 79 568 569 80 0 486 345 0 795 V/C Ratio(X) 1.31 0.70 0.70 0.39 0.78 0.78 2.01 0.00 0.33 0.82 0.00 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 842 867 98 568 569 80 0 486 345 0 795 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.82 0.00 0.82 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.6 25.0 25.0 41.8 27.6 27.6 45.0 0.0 25.9 35.9 0.0 13.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 154.9 3.7 3.6 0.8 6.6 6.6 496.7 0.0 0.1 11.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 24.4 12.1 12.5 0.7 9.2 9.2 12.8 0.0 2.8 7.2 0.0 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 193.5 28.7 28.6 42.6 34.2 34.2 541.7 0.0 26.0 47.1 0.0 13.3 LnGrp LOS F CCDCCFACDAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1694 917 323 470 Approach Delay, s/veh 76.4 34.5 283.0 33.6 Approach LOS E C F C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 38.0 29.0 13.0 48.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 * 5 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 29.0 25.0 5.0 * 43 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 22.5 27.0 3.5 28.6 27.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 78.8 HCM 6th LOS E Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 535 0 780 0 1125 345 0 2425 290 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 535 0 780 0 1125 345 0 2425 290 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1516 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3400 2760 5036 1474 5036 1516 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 0 552 0 804 0 1160 356 0 2500 299 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000053001500080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 552 0 751 0 1160 206 0 2500 219 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 15 20 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 62 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.1 41.7 69.3 69.3 87.9 87.9 Effective Green, g (s) 23.1 38.2 69.3 69.3 87.9 87.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.32 0.58 0.58 0.73 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 654 878 2908 851 3688 1110 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.27 0.23 c0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.86 0.40 0.24 0.68 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 46.7 38.3 13.9 12.4 8.5 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.83 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.4 7.9 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.4 Delay (s) 56.1 46.2 13.5 23.4 9.5 5.4 Level of Service E D B C A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 50.2 15.8 9.1 Approach LOS A D B A Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 20.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 140 0 445 00001330 575 0 1790 1170 Future Volume (vph) 140 0 445 00001330 575 0 1790 1170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.86 0.85 0.95 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1665 1438 1490 4606 5036 1467 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1665 1438 1490 4606 5036 1467 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) 149 0 473 00001415 612 0 1904 1245 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 32 32 00000000242 Lane Group Flow (vph) 134 215 209 00002027 0 0 1904 1003 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 15 15 15 15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.6 17.6 17.6 93.4 93.4 93.4 Effective Green, g (s) 17.6 17.6 17.6 93.4 93.4 93.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.78 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 210 218 3585 3919 1141 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.15 0.44 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 c0.68 v/c Ratio 0.55 1.02 0.96 0.57 0.49 0.88 Uniform Delay, d1 47.5 51.2 50.8 5.3 4.7 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.26 0.73 5.69 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 67.9 48.0 0.5 0.3 7.7 Delay (s) 48.9 119.1 98.8 12.4 3.8 60.8 Level of Service D F F B A E Approach Delay (s) 96.1 0.0 12.4 26.3 Approach LOS F A B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 260 525 205 205 335 135 380 1290 195 85 290 1065 Future Volume (veh/h) 260 525 205 205 335 135 380 1290 195 85 290 1065 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 274 553 131 216 353 88 400 1358 133 305 1121 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333333 33 Cap, veh/h 299 1225 519 269 710 174 588 1520 460 477 1334 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1496 3428 2766 677 3428 5066 1533 3428 5066 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 274 553 131 216 223 218 400 1358 133 305 1121 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1496 1714 1763 1681 1714 1689 1533 1714 1689 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.3 14.6 4.7 7.4 12.9 13.3 13.1 30.8 6.4 10.1 25.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.3 14.6 4.7 7.4 12.9 13.3 13.1 30.8 6.4 10.1 25.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 299 1225 519 269 452 431 588 1520 460 477 1334 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.45 0.25 0.80 0.49 0.51 0.68 0.89 0.29 0.64 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 331 1381 586 289 529 504 588 1520 460 477 1334 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.0 30.3 11.0 54.4 37.9 38.1 46.6 40.2 20.5 48.8 41.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.4 0.1 0.1 10.4 0.2 0.3 2.6 8.5 1.6 2.2 6.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 9.7 6.1 2.6 3.6 5.6 5.5 5.8 13.7 3.1 4.4 11.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.4 30.4 11.1 64.8 38.2 38.4 49.2 48.6 22.0 51.0 48.3 LnGrp LOS E C B E DDDDC DD Approach Vol, veh/h 958 657 1891 1694 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.2 47.0 46.9 45.4 Approach LOS D D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.1 36.2 23.8 35.9 20.2 40.1 12.9 46.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.6 31.6 22.5 * 36 10.7 36.0 10.1 47.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 27.1 20.3 15.3 12.1 32.8 9.4 16.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 255 Future Volume (veh/h) 255 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 268 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 Cap, veh/h 402 Arrive On Green 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1528 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 268 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1528 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 402 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 402 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 LnGrp LOS C Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 185 55 210 80 365 30 75 1105 400 45 630 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 185 55 210 80 365 30 75 1105 400 45 630 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 79 195 30 152 180 182 79 1163 180 663 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %333333 333 3 Cap, veh/h 162 436 72 240 453 374 100 1401 430 684 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 471 1786 297 1130 1856 1534 1767 5066 1555 1767 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 140 0 164 152 180 182 79 1163 180 663 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 932 0 1620 1130 1856 1534 1767 1689 1555 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 0.0 10.2 15.7 9.7 12.2 5.3 25.9 11.4 44.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.8 0.0 10.2 25.9 9.7 12.2 5.3 25.9 11.4 44.2 Prop In Lane 0.56 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 275 0 395 240 453 374 100 1401 430 684 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 0.41 0.63 0.40 0.49 0.79 0.83 0.42 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 334 0 473 293 541 447 177 1401 430 692 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.9 0.0 38.1 49.0 38.0 38.9 55.9 40.8 35.5 36.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.7 3.1 0.6 1.0 12.6 5.8 3.0 26.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 0.0 4.2 4.6 4.5 4.8 2.7 11.4 4.7 23.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.3 0.0 38.8 52.2 38.5 39.9 68.4 46.6 38.5 62.7 LnGrp LOS D A DDDD EDD E Approach Vol, veh/h 304 514 1422 Approach Delay, s/veh 41.8 43.0 46.8 Approach LOS D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 77.2 33.0 49.4 37.6 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 61.9 35.0 47.0 26.9 35.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 19.2 27.9 46.2 27.9 21.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 13.3 1.4 0.3 0.0 1.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.7 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1250 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 1250 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1316 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 Cap, veh/h 2996 150 Arrive On Green 0.61 0.61 Sat Flow, veh/h 4939 248 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 900 482 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1689 1810 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.1 17.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.1 17.2 Prop In Lane 0.14 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2048 1098 V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2048 1098 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.7 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 1.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.5 7.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.3 13.9 LnGrp LOS B B Approach Vol, veh/h 2045 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.5 Approach LOS C Timer - Assigned Phs HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sea Biscuit Ave & Sneath Lane/Sneath Ln 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 20 05502051855556030 Future Volume (vph) 20 05502051855556030 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 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 1583 1770 4322 1770 1856 1819 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.78 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 4322 1261 1856 1450 1583 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) 22 05502252015606533 RTOR Reduction (vph)00302100100024 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 025105205001259 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 14.0 0.6 2.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 14.0 0.6 2.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.37 0.02 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 588 589 28 241 335 493 385 421 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.00 0.00 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.00 0.00 0.09 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.42 0.32 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 8.5 7.4 18.3 16.8 10.2 11.4 11.1 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 Delay (s) 8.5 7.4 21.3 16.8 10.2 12.0 11.6 10.2 Level of Service A A C B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 8.3 17.6 11.9 11.3 Approach LOS ABBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 11.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 325 950 0 0 625 370 130 235 655 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 325 950 0 0 625 370 130 235 655 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 335 979 0 0 644 0 134 444 458 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %220022222 Cap, veh/h 1062 2039 0 0 750 561 589 499 Arrive On Green 0.61 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 0 0 3647 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 335 979 0 0 644 0 134 444 458 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 0 0 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 5.0 19.2 25.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.1 0.0 5.0 19.2 25.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1062 2039 0 0 750 561 589 499 V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.24 0.75 0.92 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1062 2039 0 0 750 614 644 546 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 0.0 22.8 27.7 29.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.1 3.9 18.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 2.0 8.8 11.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 50.3 0.0 22.9 31.6 48.4 LnGrp LOS BAAAD CCD Approach Vol, veh/h 1314 644 A 1036 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.8 50.3 37.9 Approach LOS A D D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 56.7 32.7 24.0 33.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 * 5 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 49.0 26.0 * 19 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.2 18.1 27.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.2 0.6 0.5 1.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection AM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report CPP AM 08/19/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 1: Train & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Total Del/Veh (s) 2.8 11.3 4.3 6.3 Vehicles Entered 264 194 22 480 Vehicles Exited 265 195 22 482 Hourly Exit Rate 265 195 22 482 Input Volume 275 201 24 500 % of Volume 96 97 93 96 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.3 71.9 69.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 8.1 14.5 5.1 4.6 5.1 3.7 163.8 162.7 161.5 14.7 10.6 8.4 Vehicles Entered 14 20 20 62 16 108 18 470 158 90 140 10 Vehicles Exited 15 20 20 62 16 108 18 458 153 90 141 10 Hourly Exit Rate 15 20 20 62 16 108 18 458 153 90 141 10 Input Volume 15 20 20 65 16 110 20 480 165 90 140 10 % of Volume 98 101 101 95 98 98 91 95 93 100 101 98 Denied Entry Before 000000010000 Denied Entry After 0000000135000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 41.5 Total Del/Veh (s) 97.7 Vehicles Entered 1126 Vehicles Exited 1111 Hourly Exit Rate 1111 Input Volume 1151 % of Volume 97 Denied Entry Before 1 Denied Entry After 18 SimTraffic Performance Report CPP AM 08/19/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.7 1.4 5.6 13.2 13.7 7.8 5.5 10.2 Vehicles Entered 147 16 118 126 379 166 56 1008 Vehicles Exited 147 16 117 125 380 166 57 1008 Hourly Exit Rate 147 16 117 125 380 166 57 1008 Input Volume 150 18 125 135 375 165 55 1023 % of Volume 98 91 94 92 101 101 103 99 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 27.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 73.7 Vehicles Entered 1719 Vehicles Exited 1705 Hourly Exit Rate 1705 Input Volume 4854 % of Volume 35 Denied Entry Before 1 Denied Entry After 18 Queuing and Blocking Report CPP AM 08/19/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 1: Train & Scott Street Movement EB WB SB Directions Served T T T Maximum Queue (ft) 89 146 42 Average Queue (ft) 59 54 16 95th Queue (ft) 76 119 44 Link Distance (ft) 4 139 475 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott Street Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 66 1159 173 Average Queue (ft) 29 36 936 82 95th Queue (ft) 56 51 1407 144 Link Distance (ft) 525 4 1115 1863 Upstream Blk Time (%) 16 47 Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 132 335 127 Average Queue (ft) 67 131 63 95th Queue (ft) 109 245 104 Link Distance (ft) 184 938 791 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 75 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 95 360 350 20 125 485 0 0 355 115 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 95 360 350 20 125 485 0 0 355 115 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 0.99 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1565 1633 1731 3490 3277 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1565 1633 1731 3490 3277 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 0 104 396 385 22 137 533 0 0 390 126 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000690 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 104 356 447 0 0 670 0 0 447 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)15 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 0% 5% 5% 3% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 5% 5% Turn Type Over Perm NA Split NA NA Protected Phases 1 6 1 1 4 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 12.1 12.1 12.5 12.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 12.1 12.1 13.1 12.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 410 395 418 914 838 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 c0.19 c0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.90 1.07 0.73 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 14.6 18.4 18.9 16.9 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 26.2 63.7 3.3 0.7 Delay (s) 15.0 44.5 82.7 20.1 16.7 Level of Service B D F C B Approach Delay (s) 15.0 65.8 20.1 16.7 Approach LOS B E C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 36.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 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 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2: Airport Blvd. & Baden Ave.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBU NBL NBT SBU SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 420 265 25 330 465 15 885 535 Future Volume (veh/h) 420 265 25 330 465 15 885 535 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1657 1710 1657 1657 1657 1657 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 293 304 351 495 941 275 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 0 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 369 339 1103 2141 862 381 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.36 0.68 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1578 1449 3061 3230 3230 1391 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 293 304 351 495 941 275 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1578 1449 1530 1574 1574 1391 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 20.3 8.3 6.0 27.4 17.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 20.3 8.3 6.0 27.4 17.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 369 339 1103 2141 862 381 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.90 0.32 0.23 1.09 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 458 420 1103 2141 862 381 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.77 0.16 0.16 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.0 37.1 23.1 6.1 36.3 32.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 15.9 0.0 0.2 44.7 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 8.7 2.9 1.7 15.5 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 53.1 23.2 6.3 81.0 34.8 LnGrp LOS D D C A F C Approach Vol, veh/h 597 846 1216 Approach Delay, s/veh 47.5 13.3 70.5 Approach LOS D B E Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.6 32.0 72.6 27.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 * 4.6 4.6 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 * 27 52.4 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 29.4 8.0 22.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 2.1 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 205 85 90 775 285 345 80 585 190 200 515 140 Future Volume (vph) 205 85 90 775 285 345 80 585 190 200 515 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 2917 3060 1660 1381 1547 3094 1384 1408 2947 1309 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2917 3060 1660 1381 1547 3094 1384 1408 2947 1309 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) 211 88 93 799 294 356 82 603 196 206 531 144 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 26 0 0 0 270 00000109 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 366 0 799 294 86 82 603 196 136 601 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 95 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 10 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm Split NA custom Split NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 7 7 6 6 2 6 7! 2! 2 Permitted Phases 7 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.7 29.1 29.1 29.1 21.1 21.1 89.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 29.1 29.1 29.1 21.1 21.1 89.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.75 0.24 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 527 742 402 334 272 544 1031 344 722 320 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 c0.26 0.18 0.05 c0.19 0.14 0.10 c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.69 1.08 0.73 0.26 0.30 1.11 0.19 0.40 0.83 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 45.5 41.9 36.7 43.0 49.5 4.5 37.9 43.0 35.2 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 3.2 55.7 6.7 0.4 0.5 71.8 0.1 3.4 10.8 0.7 Delay (s) 49.2 101.1 48.6 37.1 43.5 121.2 4.6 41.2 53.8 35.8 Level of Service D F D D D F A D D D Approach Delay (s) 49.2 74.7 88.1 48.9 Approach LOS D E F D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 68.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Linden Ave. & Baden Ave.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 45 210 40 430 285 45 30 245 465 65 240 55 Future Volume (vph) 45 210 40 430 285 45 30 245 465 65 240 55 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 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 0.98 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 2722 1413 1445 1479 2224 1425 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.65 Satd. Flow (perm) 2722 1413 1445 1323 2224 928 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 48 226 43 462 306 48 32 263 500 70 258 59 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 14 006000196070 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 303 0 462 348 0 0 295 304 0 380 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 15 15 25 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Turn Type Split NA Split NA Perm NA pt+ov Perm NA Protected Phases 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 4 Permitted Phases 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.5 32.8 32.8 23.7 60.0 23.7 Effective Green, g (s) 23.0 32.3 32.3 22.7 54.5 22.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.61 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 695 507 518 333 1346 234 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.33 0.24 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.41 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.91 0.67 0.89 0.23 1.63 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 27.5 24.4 32.4 8.1 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 20.3 2.7 22.8 0.0 300.0 Delay (s) 30.0 47.7 27.1 55.2 8.1 333.7 Level of Service C D C E A F Approach Delay (s) 30.0 38.8 25.6 333.7 Approach LOS C D C F Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 82.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.98 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Produce Ave./Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave./So. Airport Blvd.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 265 225 355 870 255 435 140 20 255 195 885 135 Future Volume (veh/h) 265 225 355 870 255 435 140 20 255 195 885 135 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1811 1678 1678 1678 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 287 226 0 916 268 0 147 21 0 205 932 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %666666151515333 Cap, veh/h 521 274 991 520 146 651 352 1125 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.09 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.32 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3450 1811 1535 3450 1811 1535 1598 3272 0 1767 3526 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 287 226 0 916 268 0 147 21 0 205 932 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1811 1535 1725 1811 1535 1598 1594 0 1767 1763 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 14.5 0.0 30.9 14.9 0.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 12.6 29.4 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.2 14.5 0.0 30.9 14.9 0.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 12.6 29.4 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 521 274 991 520 146 651 352 1125 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.83 0.92 0.52 1.00 0.03 0.58 0.83 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 632 332 1018 534 146 651 352 1125 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.2 49.4 0.0 41.5 35.8 0.0 54.5 38.3 0.0 43.5 37.8 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 8.4 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 75.3 0.1 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.0 7.2 0.0 13.4 6.6 0.0 7.4 0.3 0.0 5.6 12.6 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.4 57.8 0.0 43.1 35.9 0.0 129.8 38.3 0.0 44.9 39.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS D E D D F D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 513 A 1184 A 168 A 1137 A Approach Delay, s/veh 52.0 41.5 118.4 40.3 Approach LOS D D F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 43.2 22.7 28.8 29.4 39.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.9 * 4.9 4.6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 33.5 22.0 20.0 * 25 35.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 31.4 16.5 14.6 2.6 32.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR, WBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 8: So. Airport Blvd. & Mitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd.08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 150 405 140 415 35 510 305 125 25 465 685 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 150 405 140 415 35 510 305 125 25 465 685 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 13 0000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1781 1781 1781 1811 1811 1811 1767 1767 1767 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 160 154 149 441 33 543 324 0 27 495 543 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %888666999444 Cap, veh/h 146 418 352 164 412 31 704 724 486 510 410 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1697 1781 1471 1725 1658 124 3264 3445 0 1753 1841 1481 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 160 154 149 0 474 543 324 0 27 495 543 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1697 1781 1471 1725 0 1783 1632 1678 0 1753 1841 1481 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 8.0 9.4 9.0 0.0 25.4 16.3 8.7 0.0 1.2 27.9 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 8.0 9.4 9.0 0.0 25.4 16.3 8.7 0.0 1.2 27.9 29.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 146 418 352 164 0 448 704 724 486 510 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.38 0.44 0.91 0.00 1.06 0.77 0.45 0.06 0.97 1.32 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 431 356 164 0 431 726 747 486 510 410 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.0 35.1 33.9 47.0 0.0 39.3 38.7 35.7 0.0 27.9 37.5 37.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.3 0.5 43.5 0.0 58.9 7.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 32.1 161.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 6.2 3.4 5.8 0.0 18.7 7.1 3.7 0.0 0.5 16.9 28.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 46.7 34.4 90.5 0.0 98.2 45.7 37.5 0.0 27.9 69.6 199.6 LnGrp LOS D D C F A F D D C E F Approach Vol, veh/h 394 623 867 A 1065 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.0 96.4 42.6 134.8 Approach LOS D F D F Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 29.0 28.0 13.0 30.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 25.4 22.4 10.0 25.4 29.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 11.4 18.3 6.7 27.4 31.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 87.2 HCM 6th LOS F Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 480 35 315 45 55 35 15 395 400 55 30 35 Future Volume (vph) 480 35 315 45 55 35 15 395 400 55 30 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 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 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 1618 1632 2682 1753 1467 1703 3297 1703 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1632 2682 1753 1467 1703 3297 1703 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 500 36 328 47 57 36 16 411 417 57 31 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 260 0 0 30 009000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 255 281 68 0 104 6 0 427 465 0 0 67 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 25 25 35 35 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Turn Type Split NA Perm Split NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 3 3 5 5 2 1 1 Permitted Phases 4 3 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 16.4 16.4 20.6 34.7 7.4 Effective Green, g (s) 19.1 19.1 19.1 16.4 16.4 20.6 34.7 7.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.38 0.08 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 334 337 554 311 260 379 1238 136 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.17 c0.06 c0.25 0.14 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.83 0.12 0.33 0.02 1.13 0.38 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 35.1 29.8 33.2 31.4 35.9 21.0 40.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.9 16.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 85.2 0.2 2.8 Delay (s) 44.5 51.2 29.9 33.9 31.4 121.1 21.2 43.5 Level of Service D D C C C F C D Approach Delay (s) 41.1 33.2 68.5 Approach LOS D C E Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 54.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.4 Sum of lost time (s) 15.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: So. Airport Blvd. & 101 NB On/Off Ramps/Wondercolor Ln 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 760 265 Future Volume (vph) 760 265 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3406 1481 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3406 1481 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 792 276 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 212 Lane Group Flow (vph) 792 64 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 6% Turn Type NA Perm Protected Phases 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.5 21.5 Effective Green, g (s) 21.5 21.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 Clearance Time (s) 4.1 4.1 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 792 344 v/s Ratio Prot c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 1.00 0.19 Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 28.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 32.0 0.3 Delay (s) 67.4 28.7 Level of Service E C Approach Delay (s) 56.6 Approach LOS E Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 25 10 170 10 75 25 205 125 130 370 0 Future Volume (vph) 5 25 10 170 10 75 25 205 125 130 370 0 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 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.96 0.95 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1581 1496 1577 1655 Flt Permitted 0.97 0.78 0.95 0.81 Satd. Flow (perm) 1537 1201 1503 1358 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) 5 27 11 181 11 80 27 218 133 138 394 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)06003400440000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 37 0 0 238 0 0 334 0 0 532 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 15 35 35 15 10 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 5 Parking (#/hr)000000000000 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 18.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 631 493 617 558 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.20 0.22 c0.39 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.48 0.54 0.95 Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 9.7 10.0 12.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 3.4 3.4 28.2 Delay (s) 8.2 13.1 13.4 41.0 Level of Service A B B D Approach Delay (s) 8.2 13.1 13.4 41.0 Approach LOS A B B D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.0 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 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 14: 280 SB Ramps/Rollingwood Drive & Sneath Lane 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 55 375 25 90 705 795 100 100 280 240 115 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 55 375 25 90 705 795 100 100 280 240 115 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 56 383 24 92 719 601 102 102 0 245 117 72 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, %111111111111 Cap, veh/h 87 761 48 111 842 696 117 117 295 179 110 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 1755 110 1795 1885 1559 920 920 1598 1795 1092 672 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 0 407 92 719 601 204 0 0 245 0 189 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 0 1865 1795 1885 1559 1839 0 1598 1795 0 1764 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 11.9 3.8 25.6 26.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 7.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 11.9 3.8 25.6 26.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 7.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 87 0 808 111 842 696 235 0 295 0 290 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.50 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 132 0 831 187 898 742 253 0 539 0 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 0.0 15.4 34.8 18.6 18.7 32.1 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 29.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.0 0.0 0.7 6.0 8.1 10.3 23.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 0.0 4.8 1.8 11.4 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.0 0.0 16.1 40.8 26.6 29.0 55.7 0.0 0.0 32.7 0.0 30.2 LnGrp LOS D A B D C C E A C A C Approach Vol, veh/h 463 1412 204 A 434 Approach Delay, s/veh 18.7 28.6 55.7 31.6 Approach LOS B C E C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 37.5 16.3 8.6 36.5 13.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 35.2 23.0 8.3 32.9 10.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 28.0 11.9 5.8 13.9 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.9 0.9 0.0 3.4 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 15: 280 NB Ramps/Driveway & Sneath Lane 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 780 110 455 1175 0 405 0 225 0 15 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 15 780 110 455 1175 0 405 0 225 0 15 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 15 788 59 460 1187 0 429 0 44 0 15 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, %111111111111 Cap, veh/h 18 1017 448 657 1380 0 525 0 231 0 26 22 Arrive On Green 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 Sat Flow, veh/h 66 3607 1589 1795 3770 0 3591 0 1581 0 921 798 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 430 373 59 460 1187 0 429 0 44 0 0 28 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1882 1791 1589 1795 1885 0 1795 0 1581 0 0 1720 Q Serve(g_s), s 19.2 17.0 2.5 19.6 26.2 0.0 10.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.2 17.0 2.5 19.6 26.2 0.0 10.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 Prop In Lane 0.03 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.46 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 530 505 448 657 1380 0 525 0 231 0 0 48 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.74 0.13 0.70 0.86 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.58 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 860 818 726 721 1513 0 938 0 413 0 0 373 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.1 29.3 24.1 24.3 26.4 0.0 37.2 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0 43.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 1.6 0.1 2.5 4.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.5 7.1 0.9 8.2 11.7 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.4 30.9 24.2 26.8 31.1 0.0 38.4 0.0 33.9 0.0 0.0 47.2 LnGrp LOS CCCCCADACAAD Approach Vol, veh/h 862 1647 473 28 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.2 29.9 38.0 47.2 Approach LOS CCDD Timer - Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.9 17.2 29.3 6.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 36.0 24.0 41.0 20.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.2 12.4 21.2 3.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.6 0.7 3.9 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th AWSC 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.3 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 95 110 110 175 305 155 Future Vol, veh/h 95 110 110 175 305 155 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, %666666 Mvmt Flow 103 120 120 190 332 168 Number of Lanes 100110 Approach EB NB SB Opposing Approach SB NB Opposing Lanes 0 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Right NB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1 HCM Control Delay 12 13.2 18 HCM LOS B B C Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 39% 46% 0% Vol Thru, % 61% 0% 66% Vol Right, % 0% 54% 34% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 285 205 460 LT Vol 110 95 0 Through Vol 175 0 305 RT Vol 0 110 155 Lane Flow Rate 310 223 500 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.467 0.357 0.685 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.425 5.761 4.932 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 663 624 735 Service Time 3.46 3.802 2.963 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.468 0.357 0.68 HCM Control Delay 13.2 12 18 HCM Lane LOS B B C HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 1.6 5.5 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 17: Cherry Avenue & Sneath Lane 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 9 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 755 235 180 1045 560 190 Future Volume (veh/h) 755 235 180 1045 560 190 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 778 168 186 1077 577 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %111111 Cap, veh/h 1647 731 230 2372 763 350 Arrive On Green 0.46 0.46 0.13 0.66 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 3676 1589 1795 3676 3483 1598 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 778 168 186 1077 577 54 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1791 1589 1795 1791 1742 1598 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.1 1.4 6.8 9.8 10.5 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.1 1.4 6.8 9.8 10.5 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1647 731 230 2372 763 350 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.23 0.81 0.45 0.76 0.15 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3294 1461 932 5366 1912 877 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.6 1.3 28.6 5.5 24.6 21.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 2.5 0.2 1.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 1.2 2.9 2.4 4.1 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.9 1.5 31.1 5.7 26.2 21.5 LnGrp LOS B A C A C C Approach Vol, veh/h 946 1263 631 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 9.4 25.8 Approach LOS B A C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.7 35.0 48.7 18.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 61 100.0 37.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 12.1 11.8 12.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 10.3 15.3 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 18: Huntington Avenue/Huntington Ave & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 85 525 95 90 760 0 0 260 35 195 300 180 Future Volume (vph) 85 525 95 90 760 0 0 260 35 195 300 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 10 10 12 10 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 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 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3209 1770 3303 1823 1770 3268 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3209 1770 3303 1823 1770 3268 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 89 553 100 95 800 0 0 274 37 205 316 189 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 68 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 89 643 0 95 800 0 0 306 0 205 437 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 50 20 20 25 25 40 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5 5 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Protected Phases 13 10 9 14 11 16 15 12 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.8 34.4 7.7 34.3 20.8 14.7 39.2 Effective Green, g (s) 7.8 35.4 7.7 35.3 20.8 14.7 39.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.38 0.08 0.38 0.23 0.16 0.42 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 149 1229 147 1261 410 281 1386 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.20 c0.05 c0.24 c0.17 c0.12 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.60 0.52 0.65 0.63 0.75 0.73 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 40.8 22.0 41.0 23.3 33.4 37.0 17.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.42 0.54 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 0.4 5.5 0.8 7.3 7.8 0.1 Delay (s) 45.0 22.4 63.6 13.4 40.6 44.8 17.8 Level of Service D C E B D D B Approach Delay (s) 25.1 18.7 40.6 25.6 Approach LOS C B D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 19: San Mateo Avenue & San Bruno Avenue 07/05/2021 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 180 535 0 155 760 50 15 35 205 0 210 245 Future Volume (vph) 180 535 0 155 760 50 15 35 205 0 210 245 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 2.7 2.7 3.7 2.7 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 0.97 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.85 0.92 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3471 1736 3433 1800 1514 1666 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3471 1736 3433 1604 1514 1666 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.92 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 186 552 0 160 784 52 15 36 211 0 216 253 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 121 0 47 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 552 0 160 833 0 0 51 90 0 422 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 15 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 29.2 12.9 29.9 39.2 39.2 39.2 Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 29.2 12.9 30.9 40.2 39.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.32 0.14 0.33 0.44 0.42 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 229 1096 242 1148 697 642 724 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.16 0.09 c0.24 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.81 0.50 0.66 0.73 0.07 0.14 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 39.0 25.7 37.7 27.0 15.2 16.3 19.7 Progression Factor 1.45 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 16.2 0.3 5.2 2.3 0.0 0.1 1.2 Delay (s) 72.7 18.6 42.8 29.3 15.3 16.4 20.9 Level of Service E B D C B B C Approach Delay (s) 32.2 31.5 16.2 20.9 Approach LOS C C B C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 28.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 585 205 485 980 0000225160315 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 585 205 485 980 0000225160315 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 643 0 533 1077 0 280 129 79 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, %000000 000 Cap, veh/h 0 1037 1895 2891 0 399 210 178 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 5358 1610 3510 3705 0 3619 1900 1610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 643 0 533 1077 0 280 129 79 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1729 1610 1755 1805 0 1810 1900 1610 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 5.8 4.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 5.8 4.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1037 1895 2891 0 399 210 178 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.62 0.28 0.37 0.00 0.70 0.62 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1037 1895 2891 0 724 380 322 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.6 38.2 37.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 2.7 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 39.5 39.3 38.1 LnGrp LOS A D A A A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 643 A 1610 488 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.7 0.2 39.2 Approach LOS D A D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.1 22.0 13.9 76.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.4 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.5 * 17 17.6 63.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 12.2 8.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 2.1 0.8 15.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 20: 280 SB On Ramp/280 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 11 Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 73 Intersection LOS F Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 25 25 215 0 330 20 0 485 145 200 575 Future Vol, veh/h 40 25 25 215 0 330 20 0 485 145 200 575 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 41 26 26 219 0 337 20 0 495 148 204 587 Number of Lanes 010010002012 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 3 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 3 2 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 3 1 1 HCM Control Delay 16.8 178.5 52.6 22.5 HCM LOS C F F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 SBLn3 Vol Left, % 0% 0% 44% 39% 100% 0% 0% Vol Thru, % 100% 63% 28% 0% 0% 100% 100% Vol Right, % 0% 37% 28% 61% 0% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 263 388 90 545 200 288 288 LT Vol 0 0 40 215 200 0 0 Through Vol 263 243 25 0 0 288 288 RT Vol 0 145 25 330 0 0 0 Lane Flow Rate 268 395 92 556 204 293 293 Geometry Grp 8877777 Degree of Util (X) 0.667 0.955 0.249 1.305 0.492 0.667 0.525 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.98 9.702 10.65 8.446 9.585 9.06 7.24 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 364 376 340 428 380 402 502 Service Time 7.68 7.402 8.35 6.236 7.285 6.76 4.94 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.736 1.051 0.271 1.299 0.537 0.729 0.584 HCM Control Delay 30.5 67.6 16.8 178.5 21.2 28.1 17.7 HCM Lane LOS D F C F C D C HCM 95th-tile Q 4.6 10.5 1 24.5 2.6 4.7 3 HCM 6th AWSC 21: Huntington Ave/Huntington Avenue & Forest Ln/Herman Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 3 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 0 Number of Lanes 0 Approach Opposing Approach Opposing Lanes Conflicting Approach Left Conflicting Lanes Left Conflicting Approach Right Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay HCM LOS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 550 485 45 460 830 00001900 Future Volume (vph) 0 550 485 45 460 830 00001900 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 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (prot) 3230 1595 3328 1665 1665 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 3230 1595 3328 1665 1665 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) 0 579 511 47 484 874 00002000 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 154 0000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 936 0 0 347 1058 0000100100 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type NA Split Split NA Split NA Protected Phases 5 6 6 6 4 4 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 9.8 9.8 Effective Green, g (s) 26.0 26.0 26.0 10.3 10.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.14 0.14 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1130 558 1164 230 230 v/s Ratio Prot c0.29 0.22 c0.32 0.06 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.83 0.62 0.91 0.43 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 22.1 20.1 23.0 29.3 29.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 2.2 10.4 1.3 1.3 Delay (s) 27.2 22.2 33.4 30.6 30.6 Level of Service C C C C C Approach Delay (s) 27.2 30.6 0.0 19.0 Approach LOS C C A B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 27.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 74.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 22: US 101 SB On Ramp/US 101 SB Off Ramp & San Bruno Avenue/San Bruno Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 340 Future Volume (vph) 340 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 Frt 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1568 Flt Permitted 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1568 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 358 RTOR Reduction (vph) 12 Lane Group Flow (vph) 346 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Confl. Bikes (#/hr) Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% Turn Type custom Protected Phases 5 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 Effective Green, g (s) 36.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 776 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 12.1 Progression Factor 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 Delay (s) 12.6 Level of Service B Approach Delay (s) Approach LOS Intersection Summary HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 23: US 101 NB Off Ramp/US 101 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Ave/San Bruno Avenue 01/03/2022 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 265 505 0 0 745 375 495 0 495 115 0 85 Future Volume (vph) 265 505 0 0 745 375 495 0 495 115 0 85 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 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 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 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 1827 3471 1507 1736 1553 1736 1553 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 1827 3471 1507 1736 1553 1736 1553 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 285 543 0 0 801 403 532 0 532 124 0 91 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000297001780082 Lane Group Flow (vph) 285 543 0 0 801 106 0 532 354 124 0 9 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 5 5 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm NA Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 5 2 6 8 7 7 Permitted Phases 6 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.6 42.7 24.6 24.6 31.5 31.5 9.8 9.8 Effective Green, g (s) 14.1 43.2 25.1 25.1 31.0 31.0 9.3 9.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.10 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 497 826 912 396 563 504 169 151 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.30 c0.23 c0.07 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.31 0.23 v/c Ratio 0.57 0.66 0.88 0.27 0.94 0.70 0.73 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 20.4 33.7 27.9 31.4 28.2 41.9 39.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 1.4 9.3 0.1 24.6 3.6 13.2 0.1 Delay (s) 39.5 21.8 43.1 28.0 56.0 31.8 55.1 39.2 Level of Service D C D C E C E D Approach Delay (s) 27.9 38.0 43.9 48.4 Approach LOS CDDD Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.5 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 24: Cherry Avenue & San Bruno Avenue W 01/03/2022 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 280 675 140 80 1225 195 110 135 55 180 135 475 Future Volume (veh/h) 280 675 140 80 1225 195 110 135 55 180 135 475 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1945 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 301 726 132 86 1317 210 118 145 59 194 145 511 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 645 2224 404 110 1321 209 72 363 148 213 117 1060 Arrive On Green 0.36 0.74 0.73 0.06 0.43 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3002 546 1781 3071 485 777 1251 509 541 404 1597 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 301 430 428 86 757 770 118 0 204 339 0 511 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1771 1781 1777 1780 777 0 1760 945 0 1597 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 8.3 8.4 4.8 42.3 43.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 19.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 8.3 8.4 4.8 42.3 43.0 29.0 0.0 9.3 29.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.29 0.57 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 645 1316 1312 110 764 765 72 0 510 331 0 1060 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.33 0.33 0.78 0.99 1.01 1.64 0.00 0.40 1.03 0.00 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 645 1316 1312 160 764 765 72 0 510 331 0 1060 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.5 4.4 4.5 46.3 28.3 28.6 50.0 0.0 28.5 41.8 0.0 8.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.6 0.6 3.2 17.7 21.4 341.5 0.0 0.2 53.7 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 20.5 21.7 8.6 0.0 4.0 13.2 0.0 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.6 5.0 5.1 49.4 46.0 50.0 391.5 0.0 28.7 95.5 0.0 8.9 LnGrp LOS C A A D D F F A C F A A Approach Vol, veh/h 1159 1613 322 850 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 48.1 161.6 43.4 Approach LOS B D F D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.2 47.0 33.0 10.2 78.1 33.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 42 29.0 9.0 49.0 29.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 45.0 31.0 6.8 10.4 31.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 25: El Camino Real & 380 WB On-Ramp/380 WB Off-Ramp 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 1240 0 1945 475 0 1960 470 Future Volume (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 1240 0 1945 475 0 1960 470 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1554 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3467 2814 5136 1487 5136 1554 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 552 0 1292 0 2026 495 0 2042 490 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000050026700202 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 552 0 1287 0 2026 228 0 2042 288 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 15 15 10 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 4 5 6 2 Permitted Phases 62 Actuated Green, G (s) 53.6 72.2 68.8 68.8 87.4 87.4 Effective Green, g (s) 53.2 67.9 69.2 69.2 87.8 87.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1229 1273 2369 686 3006 909 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.46 c0.39 0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.45 1.01 0.86 0.33 0.68 0.32 Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 41.0 35.9 25.7 21.4 15.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.01 3.10 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 27.9 2.7 0.8 1.3 0.9 Delay (s) 37.2 68.9 39.2 80.6 22.7 16.7 Level of Service D E D F C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 59.4 47.3 21.5 Approach LOS A E D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.5% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 26: El Camino Real & 380 EB Off-Ramp/380 EB On-Ramp 01/03/2022 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 325 0 405 00002100 610 0 1675 815 Future Volume (vph) 325 0 405 00002100 610 0 1675 815 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1698 1509 1519 4761 5136 1505 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1698 1509 1519 4761 5136 1505 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) 342 0 426 00002211 642 0 1763 858 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 29 29 00000000200 Lane Group Flow (vph) 267 225 218 00002853 0 0 1763 658 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 10 20 20 10 Confl. Bikes (#/hr)5 Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Parking (#/hr) 0 0 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA NA Perm Protected Phases 8 8 6 2 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.5 26.5 26.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 Effective Green, g (s) 27.0 27.0 27.0 115.0 115.0 115.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.77 0.77 0.77 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 271 273 3650 3937 1153 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.15 c0.60 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.44 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.83 0.80 0.78 0.45 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 59.9 59.3 58.9 10.2 6.2 7.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.31 0.24 5.26 Incremental Delay, d2 22.6 18.3 14.1 1.1 0.3 1.6 Delay (s) 82.5 77.6 73.0 24.6 1.8 39.8 Level of Service F E E C A D Approach Delay (s) 77.8 0.0 24.6 14.2 Approach LOS E A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 350 440 335 320 495 280 355 1440 105 100 355 1300 Future Volume (veh/h) 350 440 335 320 495 280 355 1440 105 100 355 1300 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 372 468 247 340 527 228 378 1532 47 378 1383 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %111111111 11 Cap, veh/h 395 1247 531 393 579 249 871 1630 496 941 1716 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3582 1526 3483 2400 1033 3483 5147 1567 3483 5147 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 372 468 247 340 393 362 378 1532 47 378 1383 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1791 1526 1742 1791 1643 1742 1716 1567 1742 1716 Q Serve(g_s), s 30.6 14.7 14.1 14.4 32.0 32.2 13.7 43.4 3.1 13.3 36.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.6 14.7 14.1 14.4 32.0 32.2 13.7 43.4 3.1 13.3 36.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 395 1247 531 393 432 396 871 1630 496 941 1716 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.38 0.46 0.86 0.91 0.92 0.43 0.94 0.09 0.40 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 395 1247 531 532 436 400 871 1630 496 941 1716 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.6 36.7 21.2 65.4 55.3 55.6 47.3 49.9 33.9 44.8 45.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 27.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.9 3.4 0.1 12.0 0.4 0.1 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 16.8 6.5 5.1 6.4 14.7 13.7 6.0 20.2 1.3 5.8 16.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.7 36.7 21.4 66.3 58.2 58.9 47.4 61.9 34.3 44.9 49.7 LnGrp LOS F D C E E E D E C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 1087 1095 1957 2032 Approach Delay, s/veh 49.7 61.0 58.4 46.2 Approach LOS D E E D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.6 54.1 36.0 40.8 43.6 51.1 19.9 56.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.6 3.5 * 5.1 3.5 4.1 3.5 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.7 49.5 32.5 * 36 19.7 47.0 22.4 44.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.7 38.7 32.6 34.2 15.3 45.4 16.4 16.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 27: El Camino Real/El Camino Real & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 14 Movement SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 255 Future Volume (veh/h) 255 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 Work Zone On Approach Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 271 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 Cap, veh/h 523 Arrive On Green 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 1569 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 271 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1569 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 523 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.6 LnGrp LOS C Approach Vol, veh/h Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Timer - Assigned Phs HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 105 105 70 415 270 455 115 220 1820 400 85 310 Future Volume (veh/h) 105 105 70 415 270 455 115 220 1820 400 85 310 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 111 111 47 360 391 231 232 1916 309 326 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %111111 111 1 Cap, veh/h 176 378 160 367 628 513 249 2093 645 323 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.41 0.41 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 383 1135 481 1222 1885 1538 1795 5147 1586 1795 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 111 0 158 360 391 231 232 1916 309 326 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 383 0 1616 1222 1885 1538 1795 1716 1586 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.2 0.0 10.8 39.2 26.2 17.7 19.2 52.8 21.5 27.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 46.4 0.0 10.8 50.0 26.2 17.7 19.2 52.8 21.5 27.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 176 0 539 367 628 513 249 2093 645 323 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.29 0.98 0.62 0.45 0.93 0.92 0.48 1.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 176 0 539 367 628 513 455 2093 645 323 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.6 0.0 36.9 57.6 42.1 39.2 63.9 42.1 32.8 61.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.2 0.0 0.3 41.7 1.9 0.6 15.4 7.7 2.5 52.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 4.4 18.2 12.6 6.9 9.9 23.7 8.8 17.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.7 0.0 37.2 99.4 44.0 39.8 79.4 49.8 35.3 113.8 LnGrp LOS E A D F D D E D D F Approach Vol, veh/h 269 982 2457 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.2 63.3 50.8 Approach LOS D E D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.8 71.2 54.0 31.0 65.0 54.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.0 4.4 3.7 3.0 4.4 3.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.0 49.6 50.3 28.0 60.6 50.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.2 35.7 52.0 29.0 54.8 48.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 8.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. User approved ignoring U-Turning movement. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 28: El Camino Real & Hazelwood Dr/Spruce Ave 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 16 Movement SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1295 145 Future Volume (veh/h) 1295 145 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1363 147 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 1 Cap, veh/h 2112 228 Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 Sat Flow, veh/h 4712 508 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 992 518 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1716 1790 Q Serve(g_s), s 33.7 33.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 33.7 33.7 Prop In Lane 0.28 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1538 802 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.65 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1538 802 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 32.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.5 15.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.2 36.2 LnGrp LOS C D Approach Vol, veh/h 1836 Approach Delay, s/veh 48.9 Approach LOS D Timer - Assigned Phs HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 29: Sea Biscuit Ave & Sneath Lane/Sneath Ln 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 10 05503053051018010 Future Volume (vph) 10 05503053051018010 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 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 4322 1770 1826 1858 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.63 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 4322 1170 1826 1841 1583 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) 11 05503353351119611 RTOR Reduction (vph)0030290030008 Lane Group Flow (vph) 11 02540535002073 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 15.5 0.7 5.1 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 16.0 1.2 5.6 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.38 0.03 0.13 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 490 604 50 577 354 553 558 479 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.00 c0.00 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 c0.11 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.37 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 11.0 8.0 19.8 15.7 10.2 10.4 11.5 10.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Delay (s) 11.0 8.0 20.7 15.7 10.2 10.4 11.9 10.2 Level of Service B A C B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 10.1 16.4 10.4 11.8 Approach LOS BBBB Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.9 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 31: 280 NB Off Ramp/280 NB On Ramp & San Bruno Avenue W 08/19/2020 Southline 08/19/2020 CPP No Intersection PM Synchro 10 Report Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 635 0 0 1120 720 350 615 455 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 160 635 0 0 1120 720 350 615 455 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1885 0 0 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 690 0 0 1217 0 380 668 495 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %110011111 Cap, veh/h 194 1896 0 0 1537 686 720 608 Arrive On Green 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 3483 3676 0 0 3676 1598 1795 1885 1591 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 690 0 0 1217 0 380 668 495 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1742 1791 0 0 1791 1598 1795 1885 1591 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 14.9 30.5 25.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 14.9 30.5 25.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194 1896 0 0 1537 686 720 608 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.55 0.93 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 194 1896 0 0 1537 698 733 619 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 0.0 21.8 26.6 25.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 31.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.5 17.5 7.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 6.1 16.3 10.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 22.3 44.1 32.5 LnGrp LOS EAAAC CDC Approach Vol, veh/h 864 1217 A 1543 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 24.0 35.0 Approach LOS B C D Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.6 9.0 42.6 38.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 46.0 5.0 37.0 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 6.4 28.4 32.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.5 0.0 6.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. SimTraffic Performance Report CPP PM 08/19/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 1 2: Train & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBT WBT SBT All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 2.6 0.1 1.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 3.3 35.0 4.2 19.2 Vehicles Entered 251 274 25 550 Vehicles Exited 250 273 25 548 Hourly Exit Rate 250 273 25 548 Input Volume 247 264 24 535 % of Volume 101 103 105 102 Denied Entry Before 0000 Denied Entry After 0000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 9.1 13.1 6.2 5.6 5.5 3.7 24.3 24.9 23.7 63.2 61.2 41.1 Vehicles Entered 3 27 11 174 12 77 25 201 123 99 367 6 Vehicles Exited 3 26 11 174 12 77 25 202 124 98 368 6 Hourly Exit Rate 3 26 11 174 12 77 25 202 124 98 368 6 Input Volume 5 25 10 170 12 75 25 205 125 95 370 5 % of Volume 60 105 107 103 98 103 101 98 99 103 99 120 Denied Entry Before 000000000000 Denied Entry After 000000000000 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 35.2 Vehicles Entered 1125 Vehicles Exited 1126 Hourly Exit Rate 1126 Input Volume 1122 % of Volume 100 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 SimTraffic Performance Report CPP PM 08/19/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 2 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 Total Del/Veh (s) 7.5 1.4 5.9 9.9 9.0 18.1 13.4 11.9 Vehicles Entered 110 10 138 115 170 300 150 993 Vehicles Exited 109 10 137 116 171 300 150 993 Hourly Exit Rate 109 10 137 116 171 300 150 993 Input Volume 110 9 135 110 175 305 145 990 % of Volume 99 108 101 105 98 98 103 100 Denied Entry Before 00000000 Denied Entry After 00000000 Total Network Performance Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 40.6 Vehicles Entered 1644 Vehicles Exited 1643 Hourly Exit Rate 1643 Input Volume 4771 % of Volume 34 Denied Entry Before 0 Denied Entry After 0 Queuing and Blocking Report CPP PM 08/19/2020 Southline SimTraffic Report Page 3 Intersection: 2: Train & Scott St Movement EB WB B92 SB Directions Served TTTT Maximum Queue (ft) 87 229 150 33 Average Queue (ft) 40 122 23 4 95th Queue (ft) 83 236 112 22 Link Distance (ft) 8 138 186 482 Upstream Blk Time (%) 18 24 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 62 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 11: Dollar Ave/Herman Ave & Scott St Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 57 66 316 787 Average Queue (ft) 26 36 129 351 95th Queue (ft) 52 51 260 776 Link Distance (ft) 516 8 947 1729 Upstream Blk Time (%) 28 Queuing Penalty (veh) 71 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 16: San Mateo Ave & Scott St Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 139 187 349 Average Queue (ft) 67 74 129 95th Queue (ft) 113 145 325 Link Distance (ft) 186 939 1415 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 180