The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttch 7 - Final Trafic Study FINAL A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch West Development In the City of Dublin September 5, 2003 Prepared by: T JKM Transportation Consultants 5960 Inglewood Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton CA 94588-8535 Tel: 925.463.0611 Fax: 925.463.3690 Z:IDIDubl1n\157-164 Dublin Ranch west\Report\ñ)090503 FmLdoc ~T...n.portation Consultant. FINAL A Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch West Development In the City of Dublin September 5, 2003 PLEASANTON SANTA ROSA TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND S~Y ............................................................................................................... 1 INTRO DucnON ..................................... ............................................................................................................. 1 S~Y ....................... .............. ...................... ....... ................. .............. ........... ..... ...... ....... ..... ........... .... ........ 1 PROJECI-SPEClFlC MmGATlON ............................ .......... ........ ._......... ........ .................... ......... ...... ...................... 4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................-...................... 6 STUDY INiERSEcnoNs AND SCENARIOS ............................... .......................................................... .................. 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ...................... ........................................................................... 7 Signalized Intersections ................. ................. .............................. ........... ............................ ........-................ 7 Unsignalized Intersections............. .................... ........... .......... ....................... .......... ........... ........ .................. 7 SIGNIFICANT 00 ACT CRlTERIA ........... ........ ........... ..... .............. ................. ...... ............ ........ ........... ..... ............. 7 EXISTIN" G CONDmONS ................................................................................................................................. 8 ROADWAY NETWORK ..................... .............. ...... ............ ........... ................ ....... ........ ......... ................. ............... 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (EXISTING) ........................................................................................... ............ 10 EXISTIN'G PLUS APPROVED (BASELINE) CONDmON .................................................-.................. 13 METHODOLOGY ................................. ............................................................................................. ................. 13 TRIP GENERATION ................. ......... ................................................................................................................. 13 TRIP DISTRIBlIT10N AND AsSIGNMENT ..................... ........... ................ ....... ...... ..... ......... .............. ....... ............ 13 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BASELINE) ...................................................................................................... 14 EXISTIN"G PLUS APPROVED PLUS PROJECT ..........................................-............................................ 17 METHODOLOGY ............ .... .......... .............................................. ............ ........... ..... ................ ............... ............ 17 PROJECT TRIP GENERATiON .................... ......................... .... ...... ................ .................. ........ ....... ..................... 17 PROJECT TRIP. DIS1RIBlIT10N AND ASSIGNMENT .................................................. ......... ............ ..... ..... ............ 18 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEM:ENTS . ................. ......... .......... ...................................... ..... ............. ................ 18 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BASELINE + PROJECT) .................................................................................... 18 MrnGA TION OF PROIECT 00 ACTS. .................. ..... ................... .............. ............ .................... .............. ..... ....... 22 Bun..BOUT CONDmONS ............._........._..............................................-...-.....--............................ 23 METHODOLOGY . ........................ .............................................. ............................ ......... ....... ................ ............ 23 BUILDOUT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ....................... .......... .... ........ ........................ ............... ........................ 24 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (BUILDOUT) ....................... ........... ............................... ............... .............. ....... 24 ROADWAY SE~NT ANAL YSIS_.......................-..................-.......·-··..-.....···..····.................-....... 28 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ANA!. YSIS .........................................._-..-.................................... 29 CON cr.USIONS .....................................................................................-....................................................... 30 STUDY REFEREN CES ............._...._..............-...-...............-...........................-.........................-......... 33 TJKM PERSONNEL ........................ ............ ................ ........... ........... ..... .......... ................. ........... ........ .... ......... 33 PERSONS CONSULTED .. .......................... ............... ......... ...... ............ ...................... ...... ............ ..... ......... .... ...... 33 APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B - LEvEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: ExISTING APPENDIX C - LIsT OF APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECl'S APPENDIX D - LEvEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: BASELINE APPENDIX E _ LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: BASELINE PLUS PROJEct APPENDIX F -LEvEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS: Bun.DOUT LIST OF TABLES TABLE I: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SBRVICE- EXISTING CONDmONS .............................................................. 11 TABLE IT: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE- BASELINE CONDrnONs..................................·..·....·..·......·....... 15 TABLE ill: PROPOSED PROJEcrTRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................. 17 TABLE IV: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE-BASELINE PWSPROJECT CONDmONS ...................................21 TABLE V: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BUILOOUT CONDmONS ........................................................... 26 TABLE VI: SUMMARY OF FREEWAY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 29 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP ............................................ .............. .......... ................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2: PROPOSED SITE PLAN ...... ..... .............. ........ ....... ....... ............ .... .............. ..... ............................ ............. 3 FIGURE 3: EXISTING LANE GEOMETRY ................................................................................................................. 9 FIGURE 4: EXISTING TuRNING MOva1ENT VOLUMES ............. ........................................................... ................ 12 FIGURE 5: BASELINE TuRNING MOVEM:ENT VOLUMES ....................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 6: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 7: BASELINE PLUS PROJECT 1iJRNn.lG MOVEMENT VOLUMES ................................................................ 20 FIGURE 8: BUILDOUT TuRNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES .... .............. ........ ..... ............ .................................. ......... 25 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Introduction This report presents the results ofTJKM's traffic impact study of the proposed Dublin Ranch West development to be located in Eastern Dublin. The project is located to the west of Tassajara Road and north of North Dublin Ranch Drive, at a site that is currently vacant. The development is assumed to consist of 656 single-family housing units and 438 multi-family housing units. The project vicinity is shown on Figure 1. Access to the proposed project is via two future access roads. The southern access road will fonn the fourth (west) leg at the existing Tassajara Road/Quarry Lane School driveway intersection. The northern access road will connect Tassajara Road across the street from a future street that will serve the future residential development to be located on the east side of Tassajara Road, north of Quarry Lane School. The northern access road will service the project site more directly, and is expected to carry the majority of the project traffic. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2. The purpose of this traffic study is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts, identify short-term and long-term roadway and circulation needs, determine potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process. The study primarily focused on evaluating conditions at eighteen existing and four future study intersections in the vicinity that may potentially be impacted by the proposed project. The intersection operating conditions were evaluated Wlder four scenarios: 1) Existing . 2) Baseline (Existing plus Approved) 3) Baseline plus Project Without Fallon Road Connection 4) Buildout plus Project with Fallon Road Connection Summary The proposed project is expected to generate 715 a.m. peak hour trips and 934 p.m. peak hour trips. Currently, all existing study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. They are all expected to continue to operate acceptably lUlder the Baseline and the Baseline plus Project scenarios. Under Buildout conditions, twenty of the 22 study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the peak hours. The intersections of Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard and Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard are expected to operate unacceptably during the p.m. peakhour. The recommended mitigation for the Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard intersection includes the installation of a forth exclusive through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard and an exclusive right- turn lane on westbolUld Dublin Boulevard. Mitigation for the Hacienda DriveJDublin Boulevard intersection would also be the installation of a fomth through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard. However, these improvements are not feasible given the physical constraints at the intersections. On a periodic basis, the City should monitor the operations of these two intersectionS on Dublin Boulevard, as well as other intersections at the 1-580 interchanges, during the p.m. peak hour. Level of service analysis for these two intersections should be updated as forecast peak hour volumes become available. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 1 September 5, 2003 ..--- , , I ~'!!~~_L.__ ~," ~nJ.n:I: , I " --- ) " , , ...... , ..-" " , , , ICD ,.- CD ~ ëii (I~ c73 s õ z CI) ~ j ,... 0) ü: 'Ol! NO"T1'I: , I I , , , , '\, , , , I , t , . , , , , .. , t I t , . I , , I I g '" ~ § Q '-~¡¡~J;' ~~-. :¡ '------.......... ............ , , CD In or ::J a: c z g ~ <:) ~ z ~ ::¡ c ..... en CD Š Q. c c.c: as 0 c æ :- .5! 'at! J.J.I:!3H!XIOC =0 .. ~ ü ... .cc:: ...J .. .. ::3C1:S ~ Q. J!I f ... 0 III oS ~ ø: 0 Oa: CD- CD CI: .- I c I! 'S ~ I! -c:: C = ., ...i .. .a ë' .. .= 0= .- Q '¡( If ;:¡ '" >,.0 () ~ Z III Co III u.. w I I :t:: ::3 .- c:¡ eo UQ > I ~ ........ ........ -' co~t\'r'i· . c,os'l~·~ :(I~O.......' c,o~~q c~- _".òG ~. ~W'~ .\ .\. ..... ........-.-.-.\ \ \ · , · I · l ., . '"-. Tassaara Creek "'\ Open Space -I '- '. '. '. '. '. OpeD Space '. '. '. '- '. '. '. '. \ \ ) r .- \ . ) . I Medlara-Hlgh Density Resldellllal City of Dublin Dublin Ranch West Proposed Site Plan ~... "'0;...... ...........~J';'~ ~....'- ". "II, "'''<'OJ\¡ ~ ~ .. North Not to Scale Figure 2 ~ 157·164 - 6/311)3. PL Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access would need to be widened to four lanes under the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access would need to be 'Widened to six lanes under the Buildout conditions. Tassajara Road between Project Northern Access and Fallon Road would need to be 'Widened to four lanes under the Buildout conditions. However, this segment of Tassajara Road should be improved to six lanes under Buildout conditions to provide for continuity of traffic flow on Tassajara Road to the DublinlCOl.mty limit. Two lanes would be satisfactory in this area lmder the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and DublinlCmmty Limit would need to be widened to six1anes under the Buildout conditions. Two lanes would be satisfactory in this area under the Existing p~us Approved plus Project conditions. Even without the project, four study mamI:ine segments on 1-580 and two study segments on 1-680 are all expected to operate unacceptably in Year 2025. The addition of the project trips to these freeway segments would be considered a significant, unavoidable cumulative impact. Project-specific Mitigation o Install traffic signals at tlie two project access roadways due to safety considerations along . Tassajara Road. o 'Provide an eastbound 350-foot right-turn lane on the project main access roadway at Tassajara Road to accommodate the approximately 408 vebicles dming the a.m. peak hour. o Provide dual northbound left-turn lanes fÌ'om Tassajara Road onto the project main access roadway, considering that approximately 449 vebicles are expected to make this movement to access the project site during the p.m. peak hour. Each lane should be approximately 225 feet long and served by a 120 feet taper. o Provide a 125-foot northbound left-turn lane with a 90-foot taper fÌ'om Tassajara Road onto the project southern access roadway, considering that approximately 121 vebicles are expected to make this movement to access the project site dming the p.m. peak hour. o Provide a 100-foot southbound right-turn pocket with a 90-foot taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways due to safety consideration. o Restripe the currently closed off second eaStbound left-turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road and open it to traffic, considering that the p.rn. peak hour volume for this left-turn movement is expected to be 326 vehicles with project traffic. o Widen Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access to four lanes (two exist) to accommodate Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. o In addition, the project should contribute a pro-rata share toward funding the following improvements: Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 4 September 5, 2003 Adding a shared rightlleft-tum lane on the 1-580 Eastbound Off-ramp at Hacienda Drive as identified in the East Dublin Properties EIR. Improvements for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road as evaluated in this study under the Buildout conditions. The applicant should advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of the improvements assumed in this study. The amount of money advanced to the City should be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those projects which are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City :ITom Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the right-of-way and constructing the improvements. The City should provide credit for Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee to the developer for any advance of monies made for the improvement planned for the Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road intersection. o The project will be reqt.rired to pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development ,(TVTD) Fee for its proportionate share ofI-580 and 1-680 improvements. The project will also pay its proportionate share toward public 1ranSportation improvements (e.g., West Dublin BART and the Express Bus Service) in the Tri-Valley Area by payment of the TVID Fee. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 5 September 5, 2003 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Study Intersections and Scenarios The study focused on evaluating conditions at the following 18 existing and four future intersections that may potentially be impacted by the proposed project: 1. Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard 2. Hacienda DrivelI-580 Eastbound Ramps 3. Hacienda DrivelI-580 Westbound Ramps 4. Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard 5. Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 6. Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 7. Santa Rita RoadlI-580 Eastb01md Ramps/Pimlico Drive 8. Tassajara RoadlI-580 Westbound Ramps 9. Tassajara RoadlDublin Boulevard 10. Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 11. Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 12. Tassajara Road/South Dublin Ranch Parkway 13. Tassajara RoadINorth Dublin Ranch Parkway 14. Tassajara Road/Quarry Lane School Driveway/Southern Project Street 15. Tassajara RoadINorthern Project Street (Future) 16. Tassajara RoadIFallon Road (Future) 17. EI Charro RoadlI-580 Eastbound ramps 18. Fallon RoadlI-S80 Westbound ramps 19. Fallon Road! Dublin Boulevard (Future) 20. Fallon Road/Gleason Drive (Future) 21. Fallon Road/Antone Way 22. 'Hacienda DrivelMartinelli WaylHacienda Crossings The following four scenarios were addressed in the study: · Existing Conditions - This scenario evaluates existing (between December 2002 and February 2003) traffic volumes and roadway conditions based on traffic counts and field surveys. · Existing plus Approved (Baseline) Conditions- Existing land use conditions plus future traffic from approved projects in Dublin, Pleasanton, and Dougherty Valley. Approved projects consist of developments that are either tmder construction, are built but not fully occupied, or are unbuilt but have :final site development review (SDR) approval. · Baseline plus Project Conditions without Fallon Road Connection - This sceœrio adds traffic from the proposed Dublin Ranch West project to Baseline Conditions. · Eastern Dublin Buildout with Fallon Road Connection - This scenario adds traffic from pending and buildout projects in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley, to the Baseline plus Project Conditions. This scenario was analyzed with the connection of Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 6 September 5, 2003 Fallon Road to Tassajara Road as well as other expected City roadway improvements. It represents the worst-case scenario for buildout traffic conditions on Fallon Road. Level of Service Analysis Methodology Signalized Intersections Peak hour intersection conditions are reported as volume-to-capacity 01/c) ratios with COTI'esponding levels of service. Level of service ratings are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and are reported using an A through F letter rating system to describe travel delay and congestion. Level of Service (LOS) A indicates free flow conditions with little or no delay, while LOS F indicates jammed conditions with excessive delays and long back-ups. The operating conditions at signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (leu) methodology adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)·. This method provides an overall intersection level of service. Appendix A contains a detailed description of the methodology. Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service was evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM) Unsignalized Intersections methodology at STOP-controlled intersections. The method ranks level of service on an A though F scale similar to that used for signalized intersections, using average delay in seconds for stopping movements as its measure of effectiveness. The methodology is also descn'bed in detail in Appendix A. Significant Impact Criteria Intersections. An impact would be significant if an intersection previously mitigated to an acceptable level would now exceed acceptable levels. In addition, an impact would be significant if a new intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such intersection was not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a study intersection. The General Plan standard requires that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy F). Roadway Segments. With respect to routes of regional significance, an impact would be significant if a road has been identified since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR as such a route and such routes would fail to comply with the applicable standard of the General Plan. The General Plan requires the City to make a good faith effort to maintain Level of Service D on arterial segments of, and at the intersections of, routes of regional significance (Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road and San Ramon Road) or implement transportation improvements or other measures to improve the level of service. If such improvements are not possible or sufficient, and the Tri- Valley Transportation C01.mcil cannot resolve the matter, the City may modify the level of service standard assuming other jurisdictions are not physically impacted (General Plan Circulation and Scenic Highways Guiding Policy E [e.g. Level of Service D]). The maximum Average Daily Traffic (AD1) threshold standards of the General Plan for four-lane roadways (30, 000 vehicles per day), six-lane roadways (50,000 vpd), and eight-lane roadways (70,000 vpd) are used to detemrine the through lane requirements. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 7 September 5, 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Network The project site and surrounding study area are illustrated in Figure I. Important roadways serving the project site are discussed below. Interstate 580 is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, 1-580 carries between 184,000 and 196,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans' 2002 Traffic T(olumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon RoadlEl Charro Road. Dublin Boulevard is a major east-west arterial in the City ofDubIm.. Dublin Boulevard, west of Dougherty Road, is a four to six lane divided road fronted largely by retail and commercial uses. Between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard is a six-lane divided arterial fronted primarily by residential, commercial and vacant lands. Dublin Boulevard extends east of Tassajara Road to Keegan S1reet as a four-to-five lane roadway fronted by new residential development. Tassajara Road connects with Santa Rita Road at 1-580 to the south and continues north to the Town of Danville. It is fom lanes wide between 1-580 and North Dublin Ranch Road. North of the Contra Costa COlmty line, it is named. Camino Tassajara. Camino Tassajara is used primarily for local traffic in the Tassajara Valley, with some through traffic. Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial from the 1-580 interchange south to Valley Avenue. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda Business Park, and provides access to the downtown Pleasanton area. Central Parkway is a two-to-tbree lane east-west collector that extends from Arnold Road to Keegan Street (east of Tassajara Road) and being planned for an extension east of Fallon Road as part of the East Dublin Properties project. Hacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to 1-580. North ofI-sSO, Hacienda Drive is a two-to-six-lane arterial runcing in the north-south direction from Gleason Drive southerly to 1-580. It is primarily fronted by commercial, office and residential uses. South ofI-s80, Hacienda Drive is a six-lane divided road, a major arterial in the City ofP1easanton. Figure 3 illustrates the existing lane geometry and intersection control at the 18 existing study intersections. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 8 September 5, 2003 Intersection #1 DubUnJDou9herty L - - ~+t~~ F =!. ~~ - o~ Intersection #7 nta RltalJ.580 EB Ramp/PImD ~ ~OL ... )tt~ F J tttf'r - FREE" Intersection #13 Tassajara/N. Dublin Ranc:l1 ~ )t+~ ~r -"It ~tt~ ~ 'TWo-Way Stop, BeIng Signalized intersection #19 FallonJDublln FUTURE Ir1ters8dIoII #22 HaclendalHaclenda Cronlng L tHt~~ ~ ttt~ o íì North Not to Scale IntenecIion #Z HacIencIaJI.58G EB Ramps UI UI II: )tt ~ tttrw w ~ £E Intensedlon #8 Tassajarall-580 we Ramps ~ ~ )++tF ttr: w IE interseCtIon #14 Tassaara/Quany Lane School L ~ ~,. t~ One-Way Stop InteneetIon #20 Fallon/Gleason FUTURE' LEGEND . ExIstIng Int8rsecIIon o Future Intønec:tIon _ Proect - ExIstIng Road . -- -- Future Road Int8rIecIIonl3 lntør8eCtIon #4 IntersedIon #5 Haclendaß.580 we Ramps HadendalDublln HacIendaICeatra III ~ w L II: )HtF )t~r ttrw =!.~W UI OL" £E Intersection #11 Tanaara/GIeasOll tt~ >= )tt =:. f1ttl"" -" tt " " SIgn8IIzed lnœrseclloa #15 Intersection #1 & intersection #17 Tassaara/Proect DrIveway TIssajaralFaDon Extension EI ChaJTD1l.580 EB Ramps FUTURE Int8rsedIon #21 FaSon/Antone )H ,.. -"" ....tt· ,,~ AD-Wey Stop Being SignaIlz8d FUTURE ~ ..4"ti' " OUIU' s.w. Ó NAIITINEW DR. 22 II: ------- i City of Dublin Dublin Ranch West Existing Lane Geometry One-Way Stop lntørsecIIon 116 HacIenda/Gleason - - ~ intersection #12 Tassa}ara/S. DublIn Ranch )t~~ ~ -=: ~tt~ Intersedlon #18 FaIIon/J.580 we Ramps ~~ One-Way Stop 4 \AHJCME,rc· , . , ,.-, _.~J4LL..W'i. "I r 7êãt~W'to ¡---- ......" I ' ...---'f' , .",-, ____J...___':;.;;of'o\ . \ 11 : GW"'". .Ii I ~ ;~~: I '~ I 10· '"'~~ /'" i¡ ..i :' , , ' , ' ~ I ""i: , GLEASCN CR. ø ó / a: , , ¡: t ! 5 ¡--) ! I:ã $ :~ '... ----- --'--.... ..' I t ,,' 1 I -' . , · · · , , 19--....... ~~..... -----......- ~....". .' Figure 3 ~ 157·164 - 91SJ03 - PL Level of Service Analysis (Existing) The existing a.m. and p.m peak hour traffic volume counts were conducted at the 17 existing study intersections between December of2002 and February of2003. The existing intersection of Fallon Road! Antone Way was not included in the existing condition analysis, because currently it primarily serves construction traffic in the area. Figure 4 shows the current peak hour tln'ning movement volumes at the study intersections. Table I summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis for existing conditions. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix B. Currently, alII? study intersections operate at acceptable service levels during the peak hours. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 10 September 5, 2003 TABLE I: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - ExISTING CONDmONS ID Signalized Intersections Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard 2 Hacienda Drivell-580 Eastbound Ramps 3 Hacienda Drivell-58O Westbound Ramps 4 Hacienda DrivelDublln Boulevard 5 Haciénda Drive/Central Parkway 6 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 7 Santa RitalI-580 Eastbound RampslPimlico Drive 8 T assajara Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps 9 Tassajara RoadIDublin Boulevard 10 Tassajara Road/Central Parkway 11 T assajara Road/GleasOn Drive 12 Tas$ajara RoadISouth Dublin Ranch Drive 15 T assajara RoadlNorthem Project Access 16 Tassajara RoadlFallon Road 19 Fallon RoadJDublin Boulevard 20 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive 21 Fallon Road/Antone Way 22 Hacienda Dr JMartinelll WayJHacienda Crossings ID Unsignalized Intersections· Count A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Date vIe LOS vie LOS Feb 2003 0.66 B 0.76 C Feb 2003 0.48 A 0.51 A Feb 2003 0.42 A 0,42 A Feb 2003 028 A 0.38 A Jan 2003 0.32 A 0.32 A Dee 2002 0.11 A 0.08 A Feb2003 0.54 A 0.54 A Feb 2003 0.36 A 0.39 A Feb 2003 025 A 0.36 A Jan 2003 0.29 A 0.23 A Dee 2002 0.33 A 0.36 A Jan 2003 0.30 A 026 A ,:;~,~:;:..'~{;';'ti·':'(;~~~r~pH~:;f~g:e~ft~·~~gj,(;:..ilj'.~(:';·'·.·..· Feb 2003 025 A 0.33 A A.M. Peak Hour Delay S (seclveh) LO Count Date P.M. Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS 13 Tassajara Road/NOrth Dublin Ranch Drive Dee 2002 _ Westbound North Dublin Ranch Approach (17.5) (C) (15.0) (B) 14 Tassajara RoadIQuarry Lane School Driveway Dee 2002 _ Westbound Quarry Lane Scltool Driveway (181) (C) (16.9) (C) 17 EI Charro Roadll-580 Eastbound Ramps Dec2002 _ Eastbound 1-580 EB Off-ramp Approach . (9.B) {A} (10.1) (B) 1B FaI~n~~80W~nd~ Jan 2003 _ Westbound 1-580 WB Off-ramp Approach (10.4) (B) (10.2) (8) Note: vie = vofume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service; X.X (XX) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS). *HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections. Page 11 September 5. 2003 Traffic study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants løter8ect1on #1 Dublln1Doug\lerty IB- ~! ~~ ~ 179 !42O¡ ~_'" 600 556 ¥ ~ F193 331 31 (88 +rr 336 (656 0__ 398 (564~ :;;:g~ "11'''- ¡::t1:~ Intersedlon #7 anta RJtaII.580 EB Ramp/PImBco o II) '" ... ~ äg¡¡~ ~600 (610! C;'" ~ F145 (123 262 1271 rr 138 241 æ!i! 515 38 " ~ ~ lntersec:tlØn #13 TassajaralN. Dublin Ranch ~ s~g ~6(6) _In~ 1 (0) ¥ .... F101 (39) 0(1 rr 4 (4 ~CD'" ;;;l;!~ r intersection 9 FaJIonJDublln ã) ~ ;¡; .! CD ~ '" ;: løtelsectlon 22 HaciendalHactenda Crossing .., ... 10_ _CD -CD <0- ~¡¡¡ ~(42) +~ FI:rT (3S8) ~ -g¡ ~ ~~ ~ .. North Not to Scale intersection #2 Haclendal\.58O EB Ramps _CD ~! -'" ocø "'CD ~ 591 (542µt ~ 1,037 (361 '" C\I ~ :B~ ::..- ~~ btersectlon #8 Tassajaral1-S8O WB Ramps - _C\I N'" ~ :g ~ ~293 (334¡ , ,r-S55 {473 1- "'0 U ~(\j CD'" intersection #14 Tassaata/Quarry Lane Sdlool CD~ ¡¡:~ -II) ! intersection #20 F8IlonIGleason ¡¡; ~ 1Ø + ¡¡; ~ '" ;: LEGEND . ExI8tIng intersection o Future InIør8ectIon _ Proec:t _ ExIstIng Road .__n Future Road XX AM Peak Hour Volume (XX) PM Peek Hour Volume ~ í intersection t3 HacIenœJI.58O we Ramps '" "'CD !!!.t:. !!;e ~397 !202¡ ¥ F644 (239 ~ ~~ C\!.~ -- ~... "'~ Interøecl!on #9 TassajaralDublln i~ So '" ~ intersection #21 FaBonJAntDne +!~ £:!, '" ;: QlEA!ICN.... 6 CUIUN IIIYD. IntersecIIon #4 Haclendø/DubOn IntersedIon#10 Tassajara1Central ",-0 ......- Oro-CD -- ij lntersecIIon #16 Tassajara/FaDon ExtensIon ã) + '" , ~ .' ê;' ~lJ '7 , , ) , , / , '''-'/ I I I City of Dublin Dublin Ranch West Existing Turning Movement Volumes intersection #5 HaclenclalCentraJ _ã; !E CIllO -... Nil) ¥ ~).jf In + '"' co '" ~ ...... ;; lntersec:Iion #17 8 ChurolJ.58O EB Ramps ~- E.& N'" ....N ~ ~!~o ~ 63/1 ~ SJ(\j Q..,¡¡jf !UtD. Intsrsecllon #ß HacJendalGleasoa ¡~~~ ~~~i . ~I~", ~ intersection #12 Tassajara/S. Dublin Ranch ~ cø co.¡ --- -Oel) -co.¡- ~1 (81 þ¡"'t F251 (96) 2¡0 +rr 1 0 ~ 13 e ~~re 0- <'><0_ "'''' co.¡ Intemctlon #18 FallonJl.58O WB Ramps _CD "'~ ;:- ~39m9) ('II 126) ¥ F32 7} .J.. ~'" "'- -'" ...'" (0 I- Figure ~ 157-164 - 8125103· PI. 4 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED (BASELINE) CONDITION Methodology This Scenario is similar to the Existing Conditions, but with the addition of traffic from approved projects in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley. Approved projects consist of developments that are either \IDder construction, are built but not fully occupied, or are unbuilt but have final site development review (SDR) approval. City of Dublin staff provided a list of approved projects within the jurisdiction. The City ofPleasanton and Contra Costa Cotmty were contacted in July 2002 to investigate probable projects, both north and south of the City of Dublin that potentially could impact the study intersections. Representative from the City of Pleasant on provided both land use forecasts and expected buildout traffic forecasts from their traffic model. Contra Costa County provided information related to Dougherty Valley development. The list of approved projects that are expected to generate trips at the study intersections is provided in Tables 1 and 3 of Appendix C. Trip Generation Trip generation is defined as the number of "vehicle trips" produced by a particular land use or project. A trip is defined as a one-direction vehicle movement. The total number of trips generated by each land use includes the inbound and outbound 1rips. The 1rip rates are obtained from the standard reference Trip Generation, 6th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) or the previous traffic study report of corresponding projects. Tables 1 and 3 of Appendix C summarize the trip generation assumptions for the approved projects. From Appendix C, the identified projects in Tables 1 and 3 are expected to generate a total of 51,096 additional daily 1rips, with 4,607 trips occmring during the a.m. peak hour, and 5,365 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution is the process of determining what proportion vehicles would travel between the project site and various destinations within a study area. Trip assignment is the process of determining the various paths vehicles would take from the project site to each destination. Trip distribution assumptions were developed based on information from previous traffic studies of approved projects, knowledge of the area and consultation with City staff. Trips from approved projects were added to the existing volumes to forecast the turning volumes under the Existing plus Approved (Baseline) conditions. The traffic volumes at the study intersections for this scenario, as well as the two subsequent scenarios, take into account traffic to/from Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development TJKM Transportation Consultants Page 13 September 5. 2003 Level of Service Analysis (Baseline) Figure 5 shows the forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections 1.mder the Baseline scenario. Table IT summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix D. The intersection ofFaIlon Road/Antone Way was analyzed beginning with this scenario. Figure Cl of Appendix C contains a figure illustrating lane geometry and intersection control assumptions for the Baseline conditions based on information provided by the City staff. Under this scenario, all of the existing intersections are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable service level. The new intersection of Fallon Road/Antone Way is expected to operate exceptionally well (LOS A) under the Baseline conditions. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 14 September 5, 2003 TABLE ll: INTERSECI'lON LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE CONDmONS ID Signalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour vie LOS vIe LOS 1 Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.67 B 0.83 0 2 Hacienda Drlvel1-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.60 A 0.57 A 3 Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 0.54 A 0.46 A 4 Hacienda Drive1Dublin Boulevard 0.35 A 0.42 A 5 Hacienda DrivelCentral Parkway 0.38 A 0.41 A 6 Hacienda DrivelGteasoo Drive 0.12 A 0.10 A 7 Santa Rita11-580 Eastbound RampslPimlico Drive 0.58 A 0.61 B 8 T assajara Roadll·580 Westbound Ramps 0.42 A 0.52 A 9 Tassajara RoadlDub/ln Boulevard 0.39 A 0.42 A 10 T assajara Road/Central Parkway 0.38 A 0.32 A 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.37 A 0.41 A 12 Tassajara RoacllSouth Dublin Ranch Drive 0.35 A 0.33 A 13 Tassajara RoadINorth Dublin Ranch Drive 0.30 A 0.21 A 14 TassaJara Road/Quarry Lane School Driveway 0.37 A 0.39 A 15 T assajara RoadINorthem Project Access ~ '::0:.'::(' tji. 16 T assajara RoadIFallon Road 19 Fallon RoadfDublln Boulevard -81 20 Fallon RoadIGleason Drive ::::-0' 21 Fallon Road/Antone Way 0.03 A 0.04 A 22 Hacienda DrivelMartinelJi WaylHacienda Crossings 0.30 A 0.34 A A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Unsignalized Intersections" Delay Delay seclveh LOS seclveh LOS 8 Charro RoadJl-580 Eastbound Ramps . - . - 17 - Eastbound 1-580 EB Off-ramp Approach (14.0) (B) (16.6) (C) Fallon Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps . . - . 18 - Westbound 1-580 WB Off-ramp Approach (12.1) (8) (11.4) (B) Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service; X.X (X.X) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS). "HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 15 September 5, 2003 intersection #1 Dublln/Dougherty ~;::~ ...,,,,,l\j ~¡~ intersection f1 RitaJl.580 EB Ramp/Piml1co ~~~ ..,""- ~S~ ~600 (610\ '" - ,,145 (123 ~¡~ ~ 519 420 ~ª- ~ m lntemICIIon #13 TassajaraIN. DublIn Ranch It) '" '" ~~~ "'-~!~¡ ¥ ... ,,104 (40) 5(3 ..~ 3 (3 ~.. 59 (40~ S-U;æ. ""'-It) ",,,,,~ CD '" InterSection 9 FaJlonIDublln '" +~ \. ~ "" lntBrsec:llon Haclendalllac:lenda CnIssIng ~ CI!._ -'" -$, :: ., "'-23 (42) ,,+-'1;.. ,,131 (SSS) ~ §! ~ ~- íì North Not to Scale Intersection In Haclenclall-580 EB Ramps iß L 81::: þJ 709 (57~ ~ 1.274 (42B~ §jiñ ~¡:; ~ rg- IntersecUon #8 Tassajara/l-58O WB Ramps ~ ::!:-:. ~~ >~~¡ ~i iIª IntersedIon#14 TassajaralQumy Lane School M' <D "'- -'" ! ¡- ~2S (3) t ~ ,,90 (7) ~ CD" <D- IC<D ;:'" c:; intersection #20 FallonlGlea8on ili LEGEND . ExIstIng tmenection o Future IntenIectIon _ Project - ExIsting ROBd 'U__ Future Road XX AM Peek Hour Volume (XX) PM Peek Hour Volume ~ ~ iii ~ intersection It3 Haclendafl.580 WB Ramps !ð:8 t::.e. ~- "-447 (215) ¥ ;:-fm (308) iè!: ~ i~ intersection #9 TassajaralDublin II~ S- IC '" '" lnteIsectlo1l #21 FaUonlAntone ~ g;¡~ ¥ 19 (44)..Jt .. 3 (2~ ê¡' -¡ GI.EAICN OR. 6 OUIILII BLW. 4 intersection #4 HaclendalDubBn intersection #5 HaclendalCentral intersection #10 Tassaara/Cenlral ~ ~~~~ _.:'" 3S 19) ¥ ~,,69 ) 5 (16 ..,.- 10(40 C\2'" 9 (6~ :'26:: ~ii' ~ -Iñ ~ -'" "'.., ...'" ¥ ~~~ $~ ;g~ -~ intersection #17 EI ChamIII-580 EB Ramps IntenectIon #16 Tassajan/FaDon Extension +i. !e- m C\/ - -"'" "'''' :.t:' ...'" ..- ~ 147 A(T 6(10 S% 63(1B~ t::.t::. . §~ I , , Dt.eiJii8l.\/l). City of Dublin Dublin Ranch West Baseline Turning Movement Volumes IIItenIectIon tI6 HaclendaIGleason S' ~¡::- ç' ~~ "'-2s (29) ;:"",~ -+3(4) ¥ ~ ;:-301 (133) 21° ..~ 44 "'CD"" 13 B ~~ .,- C')~;; InterIectIon#18 Fallonl\o580 WB Ramps a¡;;- m- -'" ;;;;; ~70 ¡134) ~:.: 12 6) ~ ,,33 28) !d. ;'bg -c>I ;g;;;- -~ ~ ,) ~ I:~ .. I~ .,.__---_ _-LIoI;__... ",' 1, , I, " , . I . , , , , ...,~~... -------- .' Figure ~ 157·164-7812!JC3 .PL 5 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PLUS PROJECT Methodology This Scenario is identical to the Baseline conditions, but with traffic added from the proposed Dublin Ranch West development. The proposed project is assumed to consist of approximately 656 single- family housing units and 438 multi-family housing units. These multi-family units include 214 units that are ass\JIIled to be located at a site that may alternatively be used for an elementary school. Assuming that 214 dwelling units will be at this site (instead of a school) results in a more conservative level of service analysis for the p.rn. peak hour (since school traffic typically does not impact the p.m. peak). Access to the proposed project would be from two future access roads; both of which will form the west leg of four-legged intersections on Tassajara Road. Project Trip Generation The project trip generation was estimated based on rates provided in Trip Generation, 6t'J:J Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table ill summarizes the trip generation estimation for the proposed project. As shown, the proposed project is expected to generate 715 a.rn. peak hour trips and 934 p.rn. peak hour trips. Size Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Land Use (units) Rate Total Rate In Rate Out In Out Total Rate In Rate Out In Out Total SF Units (LDR) 77 9.57 737 0,19 0.56 15 43 58 0.65 0.36 50 28 78 SF Units (MDR) 579 9.57 5,541 0.19 0.56 110 324 434 0.65 0.36 376 208 584 . MF Units (MHDR) 224 6.63 1,485 0.08 0.43 18 96 114 0.42 0.20 94 45 139 MF Units (no School)* 214 6.63 1,419 0.08 0.43 17 92 109 0.42 0.20 90 43 133 Total 1,094 9,182 160 555 715 610 324 934 TABLE ill: PROPOSED PROJECI TRIP GENERATION Source: Trip Generation, 6rl1 Edition, by ITE LDR ~ Low Density Residential (Single Family Detached, ITE Code=210) MDR -7 Medium Density Residential (Single Family Detached, ITE Code=210) MHDR ~ Medium High Density residential (Apartment, ITE Code=220) *Assumes that 214 multi-family units will be built instead ofm elementary school. It is l.mderstood that the proposed site was originally designated for approximately 721 single-family housing units, 96 multi-family housing units, 10,454 square feet of commercial and an elementary school in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Based on standard rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineer Trip Generation, rt Edition,expected trip generation for such a development would be approximately 746 a.m. peak hour trips and 957 p.m. peak hour trips (see Table 4 in Appendix C). As shown on Table ill above, the cmrently proposed Dublin Ranch West is expected to generate a total of715 a.m. peak hour trips and 934 p.m. peak hom' trips. Since the trip generation is less than the previously-designated project by 31 (= 715-746) trips during the a.m. peak hour, and by 23 (=934-957) trips during the p.rn. peak hour, the project is not required to provide an analysis of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency's Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 17 September 5. 2003 Proj ect Trip Distribution and Assignment The trip distribution assumptions (shown on Figure 6) were developed based on existing travel patterns, lmowledge of the study area and input from City staff. Trips to and from the Dublin Ranch West residential development were assigned to the study intersections based on these assumptions. Planned Roadway Improvements Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road were assumed to consist of the following lane configurations based on the interim improvements planned for this intersection: · Northbound Dougherty Road approach would have three left-turn lanes, two through lanes, one shared through/right-turn lane and one right-turn lane. · Southbound Dougherty Road approach would have two left-turn lanes, three through lanes and one right-turn lane. · Eastbound Dublin Boulevard approach would include one left-turn lane, three through lanes and two right-turn lanes. . · Westbound Dublin Boulevard approach would have three left-ttmllanes, two through lanes and one right-turn lane. These improvements are included in the City of Dublin's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and are expected to be implemented by the time the proposed Dublin Ranch West project is fully developed. The current CIP project to install the interim improvements at Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road is funded by developments that are required to pay their pro-rata share of the cost to construct these improvements through payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. Ultimate improvements at this intersection are expected to occur at buildout with the development of the Transit Center project, as described in the Buildout Conditions section of this report. Level of Service Analysis (Baseline + Project) Figure 7 shows the forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections under the Baseline plus Project scenario. Table IV summarizes the results of the intersection level of service analysis. Detailed calculations are contained in Appendix E. Under this scenario, the future intersections of Tassajara RoadINorthern Project Access Road will be opened for operation. The assumptions for lane geometry and intersection control at this future intersection are provided in Figure C2 of Appendix C. Under the Baseline plus Project scenario, all existing and future study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable service levels. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 18 September 5, 2003 , , 0' ft: ~: i/ . . ~ffi ,/ ;<::1: " z '\ ~ " b ~~../ , 'ca - II en S c II Co) .. II ~ ~ CD II en > as >- 0 .. = .. c ~ a. III '0 a. ~ III < III o + ~ II: en - GI C 6 :;;; :E '5 ~ 'S u.. W Ø1 - c z w c:I W ..J - #-#- cø.... N ,- - .S ~::Q ca ::;, (/):: %(/) -~ .~ .5;; ~.c:: c~ ~ :: .$1 (/) ~ c:: CD .9 E- ~ E.£! 8 E "0 e =00;;; tU't:I - c:: ~ C\' 1::,9 ~O) ~ .5; !:~ o ~ -- ~ Q) ~.Q ~~ 'tJ't:I c:: CD ct! E ~~~ ~O(/) .... C\ ttI ~............ · I ~~~~L_ .:t;,'-. 3~t\11'1;I ~ " . '011 NOTI\'=i ./;¡ë9.1:?-' 44-+- ~, - "'-..... ~ ~ "'arii', o 0 .......------.... cøco - .."-., , CD a: o ~ ~ <:> .--..... ./., '- - #-#- ~C\I - ... '011 Al.\!3HOOOO œ.ci 1::(1) o 0 z- õ z ~#-¡ ~CIO - ..- · · · I I \\ '. , , . . I - #-#- o - eft '\!C)\'tfd ~ ... I '" 10 "" N N Ii' =:: .... m' z' é: s¡: 'CI:I1J'1ONII\f ò ~ .. ~:Õ3 o 0.... ~~::> _0 í;¡ < gQ - #-#- C\lN ~~Q' '?~ ~~ o 0' ........ - - t#- #- cø.... N.... - ~ ~ = tJ) ü: CD tn C o .- ... Q. E ::s tn f/) <C c o .- ... ::J .c .- 1000 ... _ fJ) en .- <DC :5:Q. ¡:: J:: .- ._ ('.) 1000 :c¡::F ::I ca ... oa: Co) - ¡:: CD 0.- '- ~:c 0 ._::1 1000 üC D.. ..oJ '" ~ ã i ~ Inter.lec:tkm 9 FaIIon/DubRn +i. ~ ... c;¡ InIers8CIIon #22 HaclenclalHaclenda CrossIIIg Ii) ~ =-: . a>- i:i :¡¡¡ 'U!3 (42) "" ,.137 (358) ~ ~l ~ ... C\, ¡¡ North Not to Scale intersection #2 HaclendaJ1.580 EB Ramps ~ ~~ ;r 1.~ ¡mµt u ~~::: ",- = ",'" ",- Inter&ecIIoII #14 TassajaralQuany Lane School fl~ ~ LEGEND . Existing In_øectIon o Future lnt8r88dIon l\1li Project - ExIsting Road .un Future Road I cPJIIUN m.VO. lntenedIon #3 Intenactlon #4 Intenectton #5 intersection #6 Haclencla/l-580 WB Ramps HaGiendalDubnn Haclenda/Central Haclenda/GIeason ~:6 t::.s. ~'" ~447 ~215! ¥ ,.880 310 +63 (40) ~~ "110 (44) ~ 36 ~91ö ~L- 8 29 ~ Ii ~- !! Intetsedlon #9 lntersedIon #10 intersection #11 latersectIon #12 TassaaralDublin Tassaara/CBntraI Tæsajara/Gleason Tassaara/S. Dublin Ruch CII ri~ ~ Bil CD ~ ... ~ :..ø ~ ~;- ~S2 (133) "'è1i::' ~13~ -gs ....... 44 4 ~ - ;:::.0._ .3 (4) ;''''~ "202 (148) Þ ",.69 ¥ ~-~ ,.-301 (133) 95 ~ 20~4 ?' ~ ~~~K it: :~ ~ 24(4 ",a>CII 10 40 0...... '" 0> 259 ( ~ ~.:. 9 (6 ~:. 13 ~~~ 0- ~~ -?8¡ !::. ",:...,. ,..¡;; ,..'" ....- IntenectIaa #15 intersection #16 InterIection #17 intersection #18 Tæsaan/Project Driveway Tassaara/FaBon Extension 8 CbanolJ.58O EB Ramps FaIIon/.580 WB Ramps Ñ' ~ ~! ~ g¡ ~ ~92 t19) ~ 126) "33 28) ... iXg So -'" g !;;;' ...'" '" .- latenedIon #21 FaIonIAntone QI.£UOIIDR. 6 .'~ i! '12 5 iI!::l i ~¡~ 2,,,, ,...---- --'---... " " " I, -_..' ~ , , I , , , ....~~... I , ~BI.IID. -----...---' City of Dublin Dublin Ranch West Baseline + Project Turning Movement Volumes Figure ~ 7 157-164· BI25IC3 - PL TABLE IV: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - BASELINE PLUS PROJEcr CONDmONS r A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour i ID Signalized Intersections v/c LOS v/c LOS 1 Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.60 A 0.56 A 2 Hacienda Drive/l-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.60 A 0.57 A 3 Hacienda Drivell-580 Westbound Ramps 0.54 A 0.46 A 4 Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard 0.37 A 0.44 A 5 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway 0.39 A 0.41 ·A 6 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.12 A 0,10 A 7 Santa RitaJ1-580 Eastbound RampsIPimlico !?rive 0.60 A 0.68 B 8 Tassajara Roadll-58Q Westbound Ramps 0.44 A 0.59 A 9 Tassajara Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.43 A 0.54 ·A 10 T assajara Road/Central Parkway 0.47 A 0.45 A 11 Tassajara RoadIGleason Drive 0.47 A 0.52 A 12 Tassajara RoadlSouth Dublin Ranch Drive 0.42 A 0.48 A . 13 T assajara RoadlNorth Dublin Ranch Drive 0.44 A 0.36 A 14 T assajara Road/Quarry lane School Driveway 0,43 A 0.38 A 15 T assajara RoadINorthem Project Aœess 0.67 8 0.64 A 16 T assajara RoadIFallon Road - 19 Fallon RoadIDublin Boulevard <.:. 20 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive ~:'.: 21 Fallon Road/Antone Way 0.12 A 0.13 A 22 Hacienda DriveJMartinelli WayIHacienda Crossings 0.30 A 0.34 A A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Unsignalized Interseçtjons* Delay Delay sec/veh LOS sec/veh LOS 8 Charm Roadll-580 Eastbound Ramps . . . - 17 - Eastbound 1-580 EB Off-ramp Approach (18.9) (C) (20.8) (C) 18 Fallon Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps - - - . _ Westbound 1-580 WB Off-ramp Approach (12.3) (8) (11.9) (8) Note: vlc = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of SeNice; X.x (X.X) = Overa" Intersec:tíon Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS). .HCM 2000 methodology does not report the overall intersection delay for one-way STOP intersections. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 21 September 5, 2003 Mitigation of Project Impacts Install traffic signals at the two project access roadways due to safety considerations along Tassajara Road. Provide an eastbound 350-foot right-turn lane on the project main access roadway at Tassajara Road to accommodate the approximately 408 vehicles dming the a.m. peak hour. Provide dual northbound left-turn lanes from Tassajara Road onto the project maID access roadway, considering that approximately 449 vehicles are expected to make this movement to access the project site during the p.m. peak hour. Each lane should be approximately 225 feet long and served by a 120-foot taper. Provide a 125-foot northbound left-turn lane with a 90-foot taper from Tassajara .Road onto the project southern access roadway, considering that approximately 121 vehicles are expected to make this movement to access the project site during the p.m. peak hour. Provide a 100-foot southbound right-turn pocket with a 90-foot taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways due to safety consideration. Res1ripe the currently closed off second eastbound left-turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road and open it to traffic, considering that the p.m. peak hour volume for this left-turn movement is expected to be 326 vehicles with project traffic. Traffic study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 22 September 5, 2003 BUILD OUT CONDITIONS This scenario adds traffic from pending and buildout projects in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley, to the Baseline plus Project Conditions. Methodology Based on information provided by City staff, there is a list of pending and buildout projects (including the proposed Dublin Ranch West Development) as shown in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix C. It is estimated that the pending and buildout projects would generate a total of approximately 376,437 additional daily trips, with 27,641 trips occmring during the a.m. peak hour, and 36,989 trips occurring during the p.rn. peak hour. These trips include the vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by the proposed. IK.EA project that may be located at the southwest comer of Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive. This site has been approved for 760,000 square feet of corporate office space. The traffic impacts associated with the office development are discussed in a "Supplemental Traffic Circulation Analysis for the Proposed Commerce One Project", dated December 22, 2000. The buildout traffic estimates for Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley are also included in this scenario (as shown in Appendix C). Combined Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley development assumed in this study is estimated to generate about 6,113 trips during the a.m. peak hour. Trip generation is expected to be 9,509 tips during the p.rn.. peak hour. Trip distribution assumptions for the pending and buildout projects were developed based on information from other previous traffic studies, knowledge of the area, origiD. and destination survey conducted in April 2003, and consultation with City. staff. Traffic generated by the developments in Dublin, Pleasanton and Dougherty Valley was assigned to the roadway system using the software TRAFFIX. The assigned traffic was added to the Baseline plus Project turning movement volwnes to obtain Buildout traffic forecasts. Traffic assignments used the closest proximity interchanges to access 1-580 while traffic was also distributed more evenly among the interchanges in a manner consistent with the effects of ramp metering on traffic patterns in the study area. The buildout TRAFFIX model used in this study represents the conditions of approved, pending and buildout projects (including IKEA) in Dublin, as well as approved and buildout projects within the City of Pleasanton, and Dougherty Valley in Contra Costa COl.mty. This TRAFFIX model was developed jointly by Febr & Peers and TJKM Transportation Consultants to distribute and assign traffic to the study intersections and analyze proj ects in Dublin. The model was developed in order to better understand traffic on a local level, such as at key intersections and local streets, which a regional model, such as the 2025 Tn-Valley Model, does not fully consider. While the TRAFFIX model uses a local focus approach to forecast traffic within the City of Dublin, the model also takes into accOlmt regional traffic patterns by considering potential traffic diversions from 1-580 to adjacent surface streets within the 1-580 corridor. The output from the TRAFFIX model is shared with other consultants to maintain consistency in the City of Dublin. The final traffic forecasts in this study were also compared to Pleasanton's forecasts (Le., at the affected interchange) for consistency between models. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 23 September 5. 2003 Buildout Roadway Improvements Additional roadway improvements beyond those discussed previously in this report are planned within the study area and are represented in the Buildout conditions analysis. They include: Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road Capacity Improvements - Addition of two westbound left-turn lanes, one through lane and one right-turn lane; one northbmmd left-tmn lane and two through lanes; one eastbound left-turn lane and one through lane; and one southbound left-turn lane. Some of these improvements have been constructed, but not open to traffic (Eastern Dublin 11F improvement). Scarlett Drive Extension - Extension of Scarlett Drive ~om Dublin Boulevard north to Dougherty Road and associated intersection improvements at Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive, as identified in the Transit Center Em. (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement). With the Scarlett Drive extension, it was assumed that 75 percent of the volumes for the southbound left turn from Dougherty Road onto Dublin Boulevard and the westbound right turn from Dublin Boulevard onto Dougherty Road were assumed to shift to the Scarlett Drive ex.tension. Dublin BoulevardIHacienda Drive Capacity Improvements - Addition of one westbound through lane and conversion of a northboWld right-turn lane to a t1úrd through lane (Eastern Dublin TIF improvement). Hacienda Drive/I-580 Westbound OfJ-ramp Capacity Improvements - Widening of the northbound Hacienda overpass to f9UI' lanes to accommodate an exclusive lane leacüng to the 1-580 westbound loop on-ramp. Addition of one shared rightlleft-tum lane on the off-ramp approach._ These improvements are identified in the Transit Center and East Dublin Properties EIRs. Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp capacity improvement- Addition of one shared righVleft- turn lane on the off-ramp approach, as identified in the East Dublin Properties EIR. Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road Capacity Improvement - Addition of ultimate improvements as identified on pages 158, 159 and 167 of:the Transit Center Draft Em. and page 3.6-17 of the East Dublin Properties Draft Supplemental Em.. These improvements are expected to occur with the development of the Transit Center project (Eastern Dublin TIF Improvement). Fallon Road Extension - Extension of Fallon Road north to Tassajara Road to include four lanes of traffic (Eastern Dublin TIP Improvement). Under this scenario, Dublin Boulevard (six lanes), Central Parkway (jour lanes) and Gleason Drive (four lanes) are assumed to be extended to Fallon Road. Level of Service Analysis (Buildout) Figure 8 shows the forecasted tI.m1ing movement volumes for Buildout with Fallon Connection Conditions. Table V summarizes the results of the LOS analysis. The detailed LOS calculations are contained in Appendix F. The East Dublin Property Owners Em. contains detailed LOS calculations for the Dublin BoulevardIFallon Road intersection based on the Tri- Valley Model volumes with Dublin Boulevard extended to North Canyon Parkway in Livermore. Note that the intersections of Tassajara Road/Fallon Road, Fallon RoadlDublin Boulevard and Fallon Road/Gleason Drive would be open for operation under this scenario. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 24 September 5, 2003 Intersection 112 Haclenda1l-580 EB R ~i ~ ""- Intsrsec:Iion#3 Haclendaß.5BO WB Ra ~§i ~ \nterSeC!Ion #4 HaclendalDubßn ;;; ~- N_= ;::-....S!. \..46 (17) g¡ "'.." 1 ,407 (1.336 # t¡,"339 (202) 228 (181 912 (2,436 ~:!I!~ 242 (810" jè",,,,, ~t::i~ ~~..- on 0 Fallan/Gleason FdonIAntone ¡::- -a> ~!S. -... ... .. # 24 (46).Jf -+ 106 (2491'11. ...~ ~ ~i M -.rr> "'.. ~- CD ....- ,... # 132 (134).Jf + 65 (691'11. ~:!I! :::!. -'" too'" "" IntenedIon #22 HaclendalHaclenda Crossing LEGEND . ExIsting Interseetion o Futunlllltersectlon II1II Project - ExIstIng Road . -- -- Future Road XX AM Peak Hour Volume (XX) PM Peak Hour Volume . ~ ;1 (). §I .f;\~ï I ) , / , ".,/ QWOQOI OR. 6 i i ~ 4 """"'" a.w. ,........ .. North . Not to Scale i~l1."22 ~ ~ City of Dublin Dublin Ranch West Buildout Turning Movement Volumes Inter5ectIon#6 HaclendalGleasOll ~ \..89 (9) ;0 .248 (115) ... ..215 (310) 127 (212 ;r 16 (121 ~ ~~ -_...'*' . ,)- " . a: I ~ ¡:ð __~--..- 1~___ " I \ " , ~ , , , , , , -'"'- , 19 .......~~_ R;re~ "C"P.1QA ~ S1~In"t. C)I TABLE V: INTERSECI10N LEVELS OF SERVICE- BUILDOUT CONDmONS ID Signalized Intersections A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour vIe LOS vlc LOS 1 Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.78 C 0.94 E 2 Hacienda DriveJJ-580 Eastbound Ramps 0.73 C 0.70 B 3 Hacienda DriveJJ-580 Westbound Ramps 0.82 D 0.50 A 4 Hacienda DriveIDubfin Boulevard 0.67 B 0.98 E 5 Hacienda Drive/Central Parkway' 0.57 A 0.58 A 6 Hacienda Drive/Gleason Drive 0.32 A 0.51 A 7 Santa RJtafl-580 Eastbound RampslPlmlico Drive 0.89 D 0.89 D B Tassajara Roadll-580 Westbound Ramps 0.78 C 0.83 D 9 Tassajara RoadlDublin Boulevard 0.65 B 0.82 0 10 T assajara Road/Central Parkway 0.67 B 0.65 B 11 Tassajara Road/Gleason Drive 0.67 B 0.73 C 12 Tassajara Road/South Dublin Ranch Drive 0.70 B 0.64 B 13 Tassajara RoadINorth Dublin Ranch Drive 0.66 B 0.52 A 14 Tassajara RoadIQuarry Lane School Driveway 0.64 B 0.50 A 15 T assajara RoadlNorthem Project Access 0.64 B 0.62 B 16 Tassajara RoadlFallon Road 0.27 A 0.47 A 17 EI Charro RoadII-58O Eastbound Ramps 0.50 A 0.74 C 18 Fallon RoadII-58O Westbound Ramps 0.51 A 0.73 C 19 Fallon RoadIDublin Boulevard 0,64 8 0.86 D 20 Fallon Road/Gleason Drive 0.30 A 0.43 A 21 Fallon Road/Antone Way 0.24 A 0.28 A 22 Hacienda DriveIMartinelfi WaylHacienda Crossings 0.54 A 0.89 D Source: TJKM Transportation Consultants. Note: vie = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service; X.X (X.x) = Overall Intersection Delay or LOS (Minor Movements Delay or LOS). Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 26 September 5, 2003 Under Buildout scenario, twenty of the 22 study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the peak hours. The following two intersections are expected to operate unacceptably. The intersection of Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard with the planned improvements is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak homo Additional improvements to improve the intersection LOS to an acceptable level (LOS D) would require the installations of a fourth exclusive through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard and an exclusive right-turn lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard. However, these improvements are not feaslcle given the physical constraints at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Adjacent properties at the intersection are already built out and efforts are now being made to acquire additional right-of-way to implement the planned improvements. The intersection of Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard"is expected operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Installing a fotn1h through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard is expected to improve the p.m. operating condition to an acceptable level. However, given the existing right-of-way and improvements at this intersection, there is no opportunity to provide additional mitigation beyond the existing intersection geometries. Adjacent properties to the east of the intersection are already built out The Sybase Headquarters building occupies the northwest comer of the intersection. The southwest comer of the intersection is presently undeveloped, however, future office development is expected to occupy this comer. The City should periodically monitor the peak hour volumes at these two intersections along Dublin Boulevard as well as at other' intersections near 1-580 interchanges and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts of future years. In addition, current and future phases of the 1-580 Smart Corridor Project (i.e., state-of-the-art systems deployment for future monitoring, incident management, and regional traffic coordination among Alameda C01.mty, Caltrans and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton) would likély. relieve some congestion at the Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard intersection through Intelligent Transportation System. (ITS) measures and discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 27 September 5, 2003 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Roadway segment analysis was conducted to determine the number of through lanes that would be needed to have various roadway segments operate at acceptable levels of service for all study scenarios. The average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for existing and future scenarios were estimated by assuming that the p.m. peak hour volumes were 10 percent of their daily volumes. The following three roadway segments were analyzed: 1. Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access, Existing ADT- 9,050 vpd Existing plus Approved ADT - 10,430 vpd Existing plus Approved plus ProjectADT-19,160 vpd Buildout ADT - 34,490 vpd 2. Tassajara Road between Project Northern Access and Fallon Road Existing AD:r - 8,990 vpd Existing plus Approved ADT - 10,370 vpd Existing plus Approved plus Project ADT- 10,980 vpd Buildout ADT - 24,900 vpd 3. Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and DubliDJCounty Limit Existing ADT - 8,990 vpd Existing plus Approved ADT - 10,370 vpd Existing plus Approved plus Proj ect ADT - 10,980 vpd Buildout ADT - 31,270 vpd An appropriate level of service methodology for two-lane (one-lane m each direction) segments can be found in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HeM). The HCM methodology for two-lane roadways yields a maximum ADT of 15,600 vehicles per day (vpd) to maintain a Level of Service D. This value is used in this analysis as an upper threshold for average daily traffic for two-lane roadway segments. ADT volumes of 30,000 vpd, 50,000 vpd and 70,000 vpd are the acceptable upper thresholds for four-lane and six-lane arterials, respectively. These volumes are based on design ADT's from the Dublin General Plan. Based on these thresholds, Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access would need to be widened to four lanes under the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions, and to six lanes under the Buildout conditions. Similarly, Tassajara Road north ofFa1lon Road would require six lanes 1n1.der the Buildout conditions. The section between Project Northern Access and Fallon Road would need to be widened to four lanes under the Buildout conditions; however, this segment of Tassajara Road should be improved to six lanes under Buildout conditions to provide for continuity of traffic flow on Tassajara Road to the Dublin/County limit. Two lanes are satisfactory on Tassajara Road north of the Project Northern Access under the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. Traffic study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 28 September 5, 2003 FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Evaluation of freeway levels of service is a different process than intersection levels of service. Level of service for freeways is based upon peak hour traffic volumes (number of passenger cars per hour). In practice as in theory, volume, density and speed are directly con-elated, and the analyst can calculate anyone oftbese factors knowing the other two. Traffic flow is used as the basis for iÌ'eeway levels of service and for calculating the impacts of the project on 1-580 and 1-680 operations in 2025. The forecasted Year 2025 volumes were obtained directly from the Dublin Transit Center P A 00-013 Draft Environmental Impact Report (July 2001). The project trips were added to the forecasted volumes to estimate the Year 2025 plus Project volumes. Table VI summarizes the forecasted volmnes and expected levels of service for two scenarios in 2025: 1) conditions without the project, and 2) conditions with the project Even without the proposed project, the study mainline segments along 1-580 andI-680 in the vicinity of the project site would operate unacceptably under Year 2025 conditions. The addition of the project trips to these freeway segments would be considered a significant, unavoidable cumulative impact. The project will be required to pay for its proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees to construct planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange improvements. The project will also pay for its proportionate share toward public transportation improvements to help reduce traffic on the freeways and other roadways in the Tri-Valley Area, by payment of the TVID Fee; two of the improvements to be funded by the TVID Fees are the West Dublin BART Station and the Express Bus Service from Livermore to the East Dublin BART station. TABLE VI: SUMMARy OF F'REEWA Y ANALYSIS Capacity 1-580, 1-680 to Dou Eastbound Westbound 1-580, Dou Eastb01.md F E D E E D F D F D D E Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 29 September 5, 2003 CONCLUSIONS In summary, TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed Dublin Ranch West development: · The proposed project is expected to generate 715 a.m. peak hour trips and 934 p.m. peak hour trips. · Currently, all existing study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. · All study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably 1JIlder the Baseline scenano. · All study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under the Baseline plus Project scenanos. · Under Buildout conditions, twenty of the 22 study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the peak hours. The intersections of Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard and Hacienda DrivelDublin Boulevard are expected to operate unacceptably during the p.m. peak hour. The reconnnended mitigation for the Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard intersection includes the installation of a fourth exclusive through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard and an exclusive right-turn lane on westbound Dublin Boulevard. Mitigation for the Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection would be installation of a fourth through lane on eastbound Dublin Boulevard. However, these improvements are not feasible given the physical constraints at the intersections. The City should periodically monitor the peak: hour volmnes at these two intersections on Dublin Boulevard as well as other intersections at the 1-580 interchanges and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts for future years. · Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access would need to be widened to four lanes 1JIlder the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. · Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access would need to be widened to six. lanes under the Buildout conditions. · Tassajara Road between Project Northern Access and Fallon Road would need to be widened to four lanes under the Buildout conditions. However, this segment of Tassajara Road should be improved to six lanes under Buildout conditions to provide for continuity of traffic flow on Tassajara Road to the Dublin/County limit. Two lanes would be satisfactory in this area 1.ID.der the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. . Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and Dublin/County Limit would need to be widened to six lanes under the Buildout conditions. Two lanes would be satisfactory in this area tmder the Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. . Even without the project, four study mainline segments on 1-580 and two study segments on 1-680 are all expected to operate unacceptably in Year 2025. The addition of the project trips to these freeway segments would be considered a significant, unavoidable cumulative impact. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 30 September 5, 2003 . Project-specific Mitigation follows: Install traffic signals at the two project access roadways due to safety considerations along Tassajara Road. Provide an eastbound 350-foot right-turn lane on the project main access roadway at Tassajara Road to accommodate the approximatelyA08 vehicles during the a.m. peak. hom. Provide dual northbound left-turn lanes from Tassajara Road onto the project main access roadway, considering that approximately 449 vehicles are expected to make this movement to access the project site during the p.rn. peak hour. Each lane should be approximately 225 feet long and served by a 120-foot taper. Provide a 125-foot northbound left-turn lane with a 90-foot taper from Tassajara Road onto the project southern access roadway, considering that approximately 121 vehicles are expected to make this movement to access the project site during the p.m. peak homo Provide a 100-foot southbound right-turn pocket with a 90-foot taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways due to safety consideration. Restripe the currently closed off second eastbound left-turn lane on Dublin Boulevard at Tassajara Road and open it to traffic, considering that the p.rn. peak hour volume for this left-turn movement is expected to be 326 vehicles with project traffic. Widen Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project Northern Access to four lanes (two exist) to accommodate Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions. . In addition, the project should contribute a pro-rata share toward ftmding the following improvements: Adding a shared right/left-turn lane on the 1-580 Eastbound Off-ramp at Hacienda Drive as identified in the East Dublin Properties EIR. Improvements for the intersection of Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road as evaluated in this study under the Buildout conditions. The applicant should advance to the City applicable monies for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of the improvements assumed in this study. The amount of money advanced to the City should be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (spread over those projects which are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City from Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the right-of-way and constructing the improvements. The City should provide credit for Category 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fees to the developer for any advance of monies made for the improvements planned for the Dublin BoulevardIDougherty Road intersection. . The proposed proj ect will be required to pay for its proportionate share of impacts to 1-580 and 1-680, by payment of Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fees to construct planned freeway improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements. The project will also pay its proportionate share toward public transportation Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 31 September 5, 2003 improvements to help reduce 1raffic on the freeways and other roadways in the Tn-Valley area, by payment of the TVTD fee; two of the improvements to be funded by the TV1D Fees are the West Dublin BART Station and Express Bus Service from Livermore to the East Dublin BART station. Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 32 September 5, 2003 STUDY REFERENCES TJKM Personnel Chris Kinzel, P .E. Gordon Lum, P.E. Samuel Lee, P .E. Thirayoot Limanond Vishnu Gandluru Geri Foley Lily Moore Principal in Charge Project Manager Senior Transportation Engineer Senior Transportation Engineer Assistant Transportation Engineer Graphics Designer Word Processing Persons Consulted Ray Kuzbari, P .E. City of Dublin Traffic Study for the Dublin Ranch West Development T JKM Transportation Consultants Page 33 September 5, 2003 APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS CCTA SIGNALIZED METHODOLOGY Background The CCTA intersection capacity analysis methodology is described in detail in the Technical Procedmes Manual of the CCTA, January, 1991. It is identical to the Circular 212 P!amring methodology except that the lane capacity has been increased from 1500 vph to between 1650 to 1800 vph based on saturation flow measurements taken at foUI' intersections in Contra Costa County. (See following Table 9 from the Technical Procedures Manual.) On average, saturation flow rates for left-turn lanes were over ten percent lower than for through lanes. However, insufficient data was collected to provide statistical accuracy for the averages. Thus, saturation flow rates for through lanes are equal to those for turn lanes. This methodology determines the critical movement for each phase of traffic. It then sums the critical volume-to-capacity ratio by phase to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio. Circular 212, on the other hand, sums the critical movement volumes themselves and compares them. to the total capacity of the intersection to detemrine, in effect, the volume-to-capacity ratio of the intersection as a whole. Level of Service The volume-to-capacity ratio is related to level of service (LOS). The following level of service for Signalized Intersecti<1ns depicts the relationship between the volume-to-capacity ratio and level of service. An intersection operating at capacity would operate at LOS E. Level of Service F is not possible for existing conditions, but can be forecasted for future conditions when volume projections exceed existing capacities. Input Data The intersection capacity worksheets use. a code to identify different lane configurations. This nomenclature is descn'bed on the following Description of Lane Configurations. Right turn on. red adjustments are accounted for as well as unequal distribution of turn volumes in double turn lanes. For more information, see Circular 212 and the CCTA Technical'Procedures Manual. Volume to Maximum Sum of Critical Volumes LOS CaDacltv Ratio 2-Phase 3-Phase 4+ - Phase A :S 0.60 1,080 1,030 990 B 0.61-0.70 1,260 1,200 1,160 C 0.71- 0.80 1,440 1,380 1,320 D 0.81-0.90 1,620 1,550 1,490 E 0.91-1.00 1,800 1,720 1,650 F Not Applicable ---- LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES Source: Contra Costa County Growth Management Propam. Tec::ìmical Ptocedmes. Table 9. \\p1s-servet\1ily\appendices\ccta methad\ccta mc1hod.doc 11108199 DESCRIPTION OF LANE CONFIGURATION FORMAT .The number of lanes and the use of the lanes is denoted with a special nomenclature described below: Lane Nomenclature X.Y Where X Denotes the total number of lanes available for a particular movement. Y Denotes how the lanes are used. When Y is . .. . . . The fonowing applies: I'~ 0 1.0 R A lane used exclusively for a particular movement (i.e. exclusive left-turn lane). _ loOT 1.0 L I: I'~ A lane which is shared, that is, either of two different movements can be made 1 1.1& from a particular lane (i.e. a lane which is shared by throllgh and right-turn ......:- 2.l T 1.0 L traffic). I: I'þ= 2 ~ 1.1& Denotes two or more through lanes in which two lanes are shared, one with _n 2.2T left-turn traffic, the other with right-turn traffic. l.lL : 3 Denotes an expressway through movement. I'~ 4 . 'Ir..- 1.4 R Denotes a right-tmn movement from a wide outside lane where right-turn _n :z.IT I : 1.0 L vehicles can bypass through traffic sharing the lane to make a right-tIlm on red.. I'~ 1.5 R Denotes a right·ttJrn movement from an exclusive right·WIn lane with a 5 :t:- 2.aT . 1.0 L right-turn arrow and prohibition on the conflictmg U-turn movemenL I: 6 I'~'" Denotes a right-ttJrn movement from a shared lane with a right-tmn arrow and - -- . 3.1 T prolu'bition on the conflicitng U-turn movement. - 1.0 L I: 7,8,9 Denotes a tmning movement which has a separate lane to turn into, as shown below: It:t)~_ 1.7 R Turn lane which is shared with a through lane or left-turn lane and under signal 7 2.1 T control, and which has its own lane to tmn into. There must be at least two It ~ t 1.0 L through lanes. II't~ UR Exclusive turn lane which is under signal control, and which has its own lane 8 ~- 2.0 T It: t 1.0 L to turn into. I t:lr;- ~ : Exclusive turn lane not under signal control and which has an exclusive lane to 9 turn into, often referred to as a "free" tIn'n. Since the volumes in this lane do not 1.0 L conflict with other intersection movements, the V IC ratio of the free right-turn In movement is not included in the sum of critical VIC ratios. · ' PART A. TWO-WA V STOP-CONTROL.LED INTERSECTIONS 1. INTRODUCTION· PART A In this section a methodology for analyzing capacity and level of service of two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersections is presented. II. METHODOLOGY· PART A Capacity analysis at TWSC interseetions depends on a clear description and understanding of the interaction of drivers on the minor or stop-controUed approach with drlvers on the major street. Bath gap acceptance and empirical models have been developed to describe this interaction. Procedures describec!- in this chapter rely on a gap acceptance model developed and refined in Germany (1). The concepts from this model are described in Chapter 10. Exhibit 17-1 Ulustrates input to and the basic computation order of the method desçnöed in this chapter. LEVEL.QF-SERVlCE CRITERIA Level of service (LOS) for a TWSC interSection is detetmined by the computed or measured control de1ay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS criteria are given in Exhibit 17-2. Both theoretical end emplrfcsJ approaches have been used ma~atame~dœo~ LOS ts not defined for the overall IntersectJcn Highway CapacIty Manur¡¡J 2000 'The LOS criteria for TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter 16 for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation f2.C11ities create different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized inrersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an unsignalized intersection. LOS thresholds differ from those for slgnallzsd intersections to reflect different driver expectations Highway Capacity Monuo/2000 EXHIBIT 17-1. TWSC UNSIGNAUZED INTERSECTION METHODOLOGY Inpul - Geometric data - Hourly turning movement volumes - Heavy vehicle percentages - PedeStrIan data - U si nal'data Compute potential capacity Compute gap times - Critical gap limes - Follow-up times Adjust potential capa<:tty and compute movement capacity - Impedance effeCts - Shared4ane operation - Effects of upstream signals - Two:-stage gap acceptance precess - Aared rriJnor-street approaches Compute queue lengths Compute control delays Determine levels of service EXHIBIT 17-2. LEVEL-oF-SERVlCE CRITERIA FOR TWSC INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay (s/veh A 0-10 B ~ 10-15 C >15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F >~ 17-2 Chapter 17· Unslgnallzed Intersections Methodology' TWSC Intersections