Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.4 AVB Traffic Stdy CITY OF DUBLI?~ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 28, 1985 SUBJECT : PUBLIC HEARING Amador Valley Boulevard Traffic Study and Proposed Improvements EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1) Memo from TJKM re Amador Valley Boulevard before and after speed studies 2) Notice of Hearing mailed to property owners along Amador Valley Boulevard 3) Table I - Speeding Citations on Amador Valley Boulevard from 10/8/84 to 3/28/85 4) May 1984 memo from TJKM re Amador Valley Boulevard Speed Limit 5) A schematic plan.will be presented at the Council meeting RECOMMENDATION : 1 2 5 6 Open public hearing and receive Staff presentation Receive public input Question Staff and public Close public hearing Approve concept presented for improvements to Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road Approve retention of 25 mph speed limit and continue radar enforcement FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Estimated costs of lmorov~menos are as follows: Design/Inspection $126 000 Median & Curb Improvements Misc Fence Improvements Street Lights Landscaping Street Repair & Overlay Total 200 000 6O 000 185 000 3OO 00o 20O,0OO $1,O?l 000 These improvements are tentatively proposed to be constructed over the next two to three fiscal years. DESCRIPTION : Approximately one year ago, a comprehensive traffic study was presented to the Council and the public regarding traffic needs and proposed improvements to Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road. The concerns of residents fronting Amador Valley Boulevard were primarily related to speeding and a safe crossing of Amador Valley Boulevard for school children. A number of traffic measures were then undertaken including stop signs at York Drive, additional signing and striping, and the use of radar. The City Council directed Staff to do a follow-up study 6 months after all these measures had been implemented. That time period has elapsed, and the City's Traffic Engineer has restudied the speeds on the street. The restudy of Amador Valley Boulevard found that the speed at which 85% of the people drive below (85th percentile), has been reduced about 2 mph. However, more importantly, the number of high speed vehicles has dropped from 15~ to 10~ of the total traffic volume. The volume of traffic has increased by 63% over the past year and will undoubtedly continue to increase as additional residential developments are completed and occupied. COPIES TO' AGENDA STATEHENT: Page 2 Amador Valley Boulevard Traffic Study and Proposed Improvements The second portion of this review concerns the configuration of improvements to Amador Valley Boulevard. Staff's schematic plan, as amended, calls for reducing the width of the median on each side of the street by ~ feet to shift the one lane of traffic in each direction away from the curb parking. This will then allow slightly less than a 5 foot distance between parking and the traveled way. This will enable motorists to more safely get into and out of parked cars, allow more sight distance for residents backing out of their driveways, and allow room for bicyclists to be out of the direct traffic lane. To alay the concerns of the property owners that the street will not be turned into a four lane facility, planted curb extensions would project into and shielding the parking bays. In addition, it is proposed to construct larger planted extensions at either end of the area fronted by single family homes to give a constricted residential feeling as motorists approach this area. MEMORANDUM 463'/ Chabot Drive, Suite 214 Pleasanton Ca. 94566 (415) 463-0611 May 2, 1985 city Engineer Chris D. Kinzel Amador Valley Boulevard Before and After Speed studies The DUblin city Council formally established a 25 mile per hour speed limit on the residential portions of Amador Valley Boulevard in May of 1984. This %fas based on an engineering and traffic survey conducted by TJKM and reported in a May 10, 1984 memorandum (attached). Subsequent to the adoption of the 25 mile per hour spc~ limit ordinance by the City Council, i~proved 25 mile per hcur regulatory signs were installed, stop signs were installed on York Drive, painted edge lines were ins*alled along the entire length of the Amador Valley Boulevard residential district, and the Police De~t began radar enforcement of the speed limit. As shcwn on the attached Table I, in a nearly six months period between October 8, 1984 and Mar~h 28, 1985, the Police Department issued a total of 290 speeding citations on Amador Valley Bouleva~. Most of these citations were issued between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. About one-third of the tickets were issued to ,'local" residents who generally reside on the eastside of the City of Dublin. Other large and identifiable groups of motorists who were ticketed cn Amador Valley Bculevar~ include 62 from P!easanton, 33 fr~m Livermore, 29 frc~ San Ramon and 23 fr~m the westside of Dublin. A total of 45 citations were issued to motorists from other locales. It is interesting to note the high proportion of outsider~ or ,,through" traffic using Amador Valley Boulevard. On April 25, 1985, TJ~M conducted radar speed surveys along Amador Valley Boulevard for the purposes of ascerta~ existing travel speeds and to 198 4 'i've a~k~ ..... e .... . .May . 8., -- : --~- ~ ~=~ time r~ricd as the before s~es. TJKM £ocatlon, c~r~ng exzt~..~.~v ~ .... -'--- The only difference used the same technician to conduct the field was the before study was conducted on a Tuesday ar~ the after study was conducted on a Thursday. One startlir~ difference between the before st~es ar~ the after studies was the large incre_a~e in traffic noted during the idantical survey period. In 1984 durir~ a c~mparable time period, 10:45 to 11:30 a.m. and 2:23 to The technician indicated that a mucn nlgner voium~ x~¥~ was evident in the after-conditions which was verified by a count of 398 vehicles during the ~le period. The prevailing speeds during both t~%e before and after conditions are ir~ticated below: PLEASANTON ' SACRAMENTO ' FRESNO' CONCORD -2- May 2, 1985 city Engineer Average 85th Location _Directio .n_ vehicle~. _Speed_ Percentile Before East of York West!~ 54 29 33 After East of York West!~ 104 29 33 Before East of York Eastt~ 72 31 37 After East of York Eastt~ 111 29 34 Before East of Ann Arbor Westbound 59 31 35 After East of Ann Arbor We~ 94 30 34 Before East of Ann Arbor Eastbound 59 30 36 After East of Ann Arbor Easttx~ 89 30 33 Note that speeds generally were reduced in the after survey. The average speeds were reduced from 30.3 Imiles per hour to 29.5 ~niles a/7 hour. The critical or 85th percentile speeds were reduced almost two miles per hour, however, from 35.3 miles per hour to 33.5 iniles per hour. In the before study, approximately 58 percent of all vehicles were travelling at 30 miles per hour or less. In the after study, this increased to 62.4 percent vehicles. In the after study, ten percent of all vehicles were observed to be travelling greater than 35 i~iles ~ hour. In the before study, 15 percent of all vehicles were travelling greater than 35 miles per hour. Our conclusions are that the rad.~r enforcement and other measures taken in the past year have been somewhat effective in reducing the speed of vehicles alcng Amador Valley Boulevard. Although the average speed of all v~hicles has not been reduced signific~_ntly, there is a ~aller proportion of vehicles travelling at the higher speeds. The higher speeds, those above 35 miles per hcur, are thcse which are especially annoying to the nearby residents ar~ which have the greatest impact upon safety along the street. It is also noted that the de~iease in speeding along Amador Valley Boulevard undoubtedly due to enforcement, comes at a time when traffic volumes have in~i-ea~ed substantiallY along this street, at le~t during the Based on the findings of the before and after study and evaluation of other activities conducted by the City during the past year, it is recommended that the 25 mile per hour limit be retained and that the r~_S~r enforcement by the Police Department continue. CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 9456S planning/Zoning o-=-.,. Building & Safety 829-0822 Et-~gineering.'Public Vv'orks 829-401'~'' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD - TRAFFIC STUDY AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The City of Dublin will review an updated traffic study and proposed improvements to Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road- Last year, as a result of a comprehensive traffic study and public hearing, certain steps were taken to attempt to reduce the speeding on Amador Valley Boulevard through its residential .area. These measures included the installation of stop signs at York Drive, signing and striping, and the use of radar. The City Council directed that after all these traffic improvements have been in effect for 6 months, a new study be done to test its effectiveness- The summary of this new study is that the speed at which 85% of the people drive below has been reduced by about 2 miles per hour, the number of high speed vehicles has dropped from 15% to 10% of the total traffic and the volume of traffic has greatly increased over the past year. The second portion of the hearing is to discuss improvements to the street. A public hearing on this item will be held at the regular City Council meeting of May 28, 1985. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. at the Dublin Library Meeting Room, located at 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard. TAB~ F. I S~ C1TATICI~S C~ Al~ V~T~'~%~Y ~ Octob~ 8, ]~84 tO March 28, ]_985 Local West San Dublin Ramon Pleasanton Livermore Other Total 12-2 AM 1 ..... 1 2-4 AM ..... 1 1 4-6 AM 1 ..... 1 6-8 AM 7 4 1 1 2 5 20 8-10 AM 11 3 2 1 1 2 20 10-12 AM 20 1 4 8 2 11 46 12-2 lq~ 13 6 2 7 7 9 44 2-4 lq~ 10 2 5 7 4 2 30 4-6 PM 10 2 10 13 7 7 49 6-8 PM 11 3 4 14 5 6 43 8-10 PM 10 2 - 9 5 2 28 10-12 PM --4 - __1 --2 - - 7 Total 98 23 29 62 33 45 290 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: May 10, 1984 Richard Ambrose, City Manager Chris D. Kinzel Amador Valley Boulevard Speed Limit The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that certain studies De conducted and procedures be followed in order to allow the use of radar for speed enforcement. We have completed such studies and are reco.~nending that the City Council enact an ordinance providing for a 25 mile per hour limit on the residential portions of Amador Valley Boulevard. Sections 22357, 22348 and 22358 of CVC allows cities to establish various speed limits on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. Section 627 defines the engineering and traffic survey to include a study of prevailing speeds, accident records and conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Section 40802 provides that engineering ~nd traffic surveys and resulting speed limits are valid for only a five year period when radar enforcement is utilized. In preparing these recommendations, TJKM has followed all applicable provisions and requirements of the California Vehicle Code and the California Department of Transportation and following the enacting of an ordinance based on these recommendations, the City of Dublin may enforce speed limits on portions of Amador Valley Boulevard with the use of radar. Prevailing Speeds: Updated radar speed surveys were conducted in miO-morn~ng anO mid-afternoon periods on Amador Valley Boulevard on May 8, 1984. Summaries of the radar surveys for the four locations sampled are enclosed. The results are further su~arized as follows: Average Location Direction Vehicles .... Speed 85th% East of York East of York East of Ann Arbor East of Ann ArDor Westbound 54 29 33 Eastbound 72 31 37 Westbound 59 31 35 Eastbound 59 30 36 A total of 2~4 vehicles was observed during the survey periods. Only 11 vehicles were observed at speeds of 25 mph or lower. However, only 37 vehicles were travelling faster than 35 mi]es per hour. (At other times of t~e day, however, a greater population of the vehicles may be exceeding 35 mph.) The radar observer noted that a larger portion of the vehicles were driven by teenaged motorists. Richard Ambrose -2- May 10, 1984 Accident Records: Accident summaries for the past two and a half years were reviewed, there does not appear to be a serious accident problem along the street although the presence of relatively high volumes of "through" traffic in a residential district with numerous driveways and parked vehicles indicates a potential accident problem if high speed traffic is not abated. Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver: This is the primary factor which indicates the need for a 25 mph zone. Due to the numerous driveways, parked vehicles, intersections and crosswalks, prevailing travel speeds should be kept to a minimum. Since the roadway is used as an arterial and serves through traffic, these conditions are not readily apparent to many motorists. Recommendations: It is recommended that the City Council enact an ordinance limiting the speed of travel to 25 miles per hour, in both directions of travel, on Amador Valley Boulevard between 2D0 feet east of Village Parkway and 200 feet east of Stagecoach Drive. Such limits will be effective only after the position of appropriate speed limit signs at these locations. psw Attachments: Four speed survey summaries SPOT SR'EED STUDY ANAu ~IS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN LOCATION AMADOR VALLEY EAST OF DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED WES]'BOUND TUESDAY 5-8-84 2:23-3:15PM 25 54 YORK DEVELOPMENT 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 85tn PERCENTILE S;'EED 10 MPH PACE SPEED PERCENT IN PACE SPE~D RANGE OF SPEEDS SKEWNESS INDEX RESIDENTL. 29 33 26 TO 35 92 25 TO 37 1.33 CUMULATIVE SPEED NUM- PERCNT. (MPH) BER OF TOT. 25 1 1.85 26 7 12.96 27 7 i2.96 28 6 11.11 29 9 16.67 30 6 11.11 31 ~ 5. 56 32 4 7.41 33 3 5.56 34 4 7.41 35 1 1.85 36 2 ~.70 37 1 1.85 38 0 0.00 39 0 0.00 40 0 0.00 41 0 0.00 42 0 0.00 43 0 0.00 44 0 0.00 45 0 0.00 46 0 0.00 47 0 0.00 48 0 0.00 49 0 0.00 50 0 0.00 51 0 0.00 52 0 0.00 53 0 0.00 54 0 0.00 55 0 0.00 56 0 0.00 57 0 0.00 58 0 0.00 59 0 0.00 60 0 0.00 61 0 0.00 62 0 0.00 63 0 0.00 64 0 0.00 CUMUL. PRCNT. 1.85 14.81 27.78 38.89 55.56 66.67 72.22 79.63 85.19 92.59 94.44 98.15 i00.00 10o. o0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 loo. oo 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 loo. 0o 100.00 lOO. oo 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0o 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10o. 00 SPEED CURVE 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% [ i I [ ] [ I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I- I I I I- l I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 SPEED (MPH> 60 70 SPOT SFJEED STUDY ANAL,SiS FOR THE CiTY OF DUBLIN LOCATION AMADOR VALLEY EAST OF DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED EASTBOUND TUESDAY 5-8-84 2:23-3:15PM 25 72 YORK DEVELOPMENT 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 85th PERCENTILE S;'EED i0 MPH PACE SPEED PERCENT IN PACE SPEED RANGE OF SPEEDS SKEWNESS INDEX RESIDENTL. 31 37 27 TO 36 81 25 TO 41 1.27 SPEED NUM-- (MPH) BER OF TOT. ~5 ~ 2.78 26 0 0.00 27 4 5.56 28 6 8.7? 29 9 12.50 30 6 8.TM 31 14 19.44 3._ 2 ~ 4.17 ~ 1 1.39 34 8 ii. ii 35 ~ 4.17 36 5 6.94 37 ? 4.17 38 5 6.94 39 I 1.39 40 1 1.39 4i 1 i.39 42 0 0.00 43 0 0.00 44 0 0.00 45 0 0.00 46 0 0.00 47 0 0.00 48 0 0.00 49 0 0.00 50 0 0.00 51 0 0.00 52 0 0.00 53 0 0.00 54 0 0.00 ~ 0 0.00 56 0 0.00 57 0 0.00 58 0 0.00 59 0 0.00 60 0 0.00 61 0 0.00 62 0 0.00 63 0 0.00 64 0 0.00 CUMULATIVE SPEED PERCNT. CUMUL. PRCNT. 100% '2.78 2.78 8.33 16.67 90% 29. i7 37.50 56.94 61.11 80% 62.50 73.61 77.78 84.72 70% 88.89 95.~3 97.-:..'z, 98.61 60% 100.00 100.00 100.00 lOO. OO 50% ioo. oo 100.00 i00.00 100.00 40% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 30% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 20% !00.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10% I00.00 ]00.00 100.00 100.00 0% CURVE 0 10 20 30 S~'EED 40 50 60 (MPH) SPOT SPEED STUDY AN, KSIS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN LOCATION AMADOR VALLEY EAST OF DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED WES]-BOUND TUESDAY 5-8-84 i 0: 45- i i: 23A,~ 59 ANN ARBOR DEVELOPMENT 50t~ PERCENTILE SPEED 85t h PERCEN'FILE SPEED 10 MPH PACE SPEED PERC~_NT IN PACE S~-'EBZD RANGE OF SPEEDS SKEWNESS INDEX RESIDENTL. 31 35 27 TO 36 81 24 TO 42 1.27 CUMULATIVE SPEED NUM- PERCNT. CUMUL. (MPH) BER OF TOT. PRCNT. 24 1 1.69 1.69 25 ~'=' ~7.39 5.08 26 I 1.69 6.78 27 5 8.47 15.'-'=~ 28 ~ 5. 08 20.34 29 5 8.47 28.81 30 9 15.25 44.07 31 8 13.56 57.63 32 4 6.78 64.41 33 4 6.78 7i.19 34 4 6.78 77.97 35 5 8.47 86.44 36 1 1.69 88.14 37 2 ~ 7.39 91 . 53 3~ 3 5.08 96.61 39 0 0.00 96.6i 40 0 0.00 96.61 41 I 1.69 98.='1~ 42 1 1.69 100.00 43 0 0.00 100.00 44 0 0.00 100.00 45 0 0.00 100.00 46 0 0.00 100.00 47 0 0.00 100.00 48 0 0.00 100.00 49 0 0.00 100.00 50 0 0.00 100.00 51 0 0.00 100.00 5~ 0 0.00 100.00 53 0 0.00 100.00 54 0 0.00 100.00 55 0 0.00 100.00 56 0 0.00 100.00 57 0 0.00 100.00 58 0 0.00 100.00 59 0 0.00 100.00 60 0 0.00 100.00 61 0 0.00 100.00 62 0 0.00 100.00 63 0 0.00 100.00 SPEED CURVE 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% I ® I I ~--~ I ee I I · I I · I I .---e I I~ lee I le 1 le I le I~ I le I le I ee I 1 -------e I e I · I · I · I · I · I · I I~ · I 0 10 20 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I i ,I I I I I 1 I I I 30 40 50 60 SPEED (MPH) 70 SPOT SPEED STUDY ANA-,SIS FOR TRE CITY OF DOBLIN LOCATION AMADOR VALLEY EAST OF ANN DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED EASTBOdND TUESDAY 5-8-84 10:45-1i:23A~d 25 59 ARBOR DEVELOPMENT 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 85t~ PERCENTIL~ SP£ED 10 MPH PACE SPEED PERCENT IN PAC~ SPEED RANGE OF SPEEDS SKEWNESS INDEX RESiDENTL. 30 36 28 TO 37 76 ~0 TO 40 1.17 CUMULATIVE SPEED NUM- PERCNT. (MPH) BER OF TO"F. 20 2 ~ =. 39 21 0 0. 00 ~_~_'="=' 0 0. 00 ~'='~ ' i 1 . 69 24 i 1.69 25 i 1.69 26 '--.' ~ ~'. 39 27 ~' 5. (.~8 28 6 10. 17 ~9 5 8.47 30 12 20.34 3i 5 8.47 34 3 5. 08 35 3 5. 08 36 2 ~ ~. 39 37 4 6. 78 38 2 ~ =. 39 39 0 0. 00 40 2 ¢ ?. 39 41 0 0. 00 42 0 0. 00 43 0 0. 00 44 0 0. 00 45 0 0. ~0 46 0 0. 00 47 0 0. 00 48 0 0. 00 49 0 0. 00 50 0 0. 00 51 0 0. 00 5~ 0 0. 00 53 0 0. 00 54 0 0. 00 55 0 0. 00 56 0 0. 00 57 0 0. 00 58 0 0. 00 59 0 0. 00 SPEED CURVE CUMUL. PRCNT. 100% 3.39 3.39 5.08 '90% 6.78 8.47 11.86 i6.95 80% 27.12 35.59 55.93 64.41 70% 67.80 72.88 77.97 83.05 60% 86.44 93.22 96.6i 96.61 50% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 40% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 30% i00.00 100.00 100.0° 100.00 20% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0% 0 10 20 I I I I I I ,-t~ I I I 30 40 50 SPEED (MPH) 60 70 FOR ~'nE CiTY E,F. DUB=iN ~OCAT i ON A,'fiAC,[]R k.'A: .... --Y -' ':, DiRECTiON DAY OF ':HE WCEK DATE TIME OF T~E DAY POSTED SPEED LI~iT VEHiCLeS O~SERV~D WESTBOUND THURSDAY 4-~5-&5 ;:': 73F-';,1-3: 15F-'m 104 FEE'i' .EAST 0-' YORK D--VE LO.z';,1ENT 50~n PERCENTIL_E SDEED ~5tn P:Z,RCE~TILE S:'EED 1~ MPH PACE SPEED -,F_RCF,~T I¢4 PACE S~:'EED RANGE OF' S=~'EEDS Si<EwNESS i,kDEX 25 ]'0 34 89 24 TO 40 i.20 CUMULATIVE SPEED ,~UM- PERCNT. (;¥iP[-i) BER OF TOT. 24 i 0.96 .'-~ 12 I i. 54 26 5 4.81 27 10 9.62 ;--:8 16 i5.38 2'9 · i3 12.50 30 10 9.6 ~ 31 7 6. 73 32 8 7.69 ~? 7 8.73 34 5 4.81 35 3 :~. B8 36 2 i. 9~ 3~ ~ 1.92 38 I ~Z~. 96 39 1 0. 9~ 40 i 0. 96 4 ! 0 0. 00 4;~ G 0. OG 43 0 ~. ~0 44 ,D 0. ~DO 45 0 0. 00 46 0 ~. 00 47 0 0. 02] 4 8 ,Z~ 0. 00 49 ~Z~ 0. 00 50 0 0. 00 51 ,D 0. 00 52 0 0. 00 53 0 0. 54 0 0. 00 55 0 0. 00 56 0 0. ~ 0 57 ~Z~ 0. 00 58 0 ~. 00 59 ~Z~ C~. 00 60 21 C~. ~Z~ 61 ~D 0. 6~ ~Z~ 0. GO 63 0 0. ~ 0 S~,EED CURVE CUMUL. ,'n(uNT. 100% 0. 96 i':'.,._ 50 17.31 ~6. '92 90% 42. 31 54. 81 64.42 71. i5 ~B0% 78.85 S5 58 90. 38 93. ~7 '95. 19 97. 1 ':,' 98. 08 99. OA. 60% 1 OlD. 00 ]. 0 0. 00 100. 00 100. 00 100. 00 100. 00 100. 00 4~% 100. 00 I E~O. 00 100. 00 100. 00 30% i 00. 00 100. 00 100. ~0 100. 00 2~% 100. 00 i 00. 00 i ~Z~. 00 10% i 00. 00 i ~0. 00 100. 00 0% t l i i 0 i0 20 1 I i i i I i i i--i I 1 i i--I I 30 40 50 S--'EED (MPH) ,! 60 =OCATiON DIRECTION DAY O~ T¼E WEEK DATE TIME 07 'FB~ DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VE~iCLES OBSERVED EAS]'BOWND T¼URSDAY 4-25-85 2:23A,,~-3:15~,~: ii1 ~.:--_.E'F EAS'T OF- YOR~< D--VE~_O~'ME ~T ~O~n PERCENTILE SPEED 85tln ~,-ZRCE,kTi~E SJ'6:ED c',{~CE.~T IN PACE S~'EZD RANG~ OF SPEEDS Sr<~N~SS I,~D~X 2'9 3. 25 ]'0 3i 22 TO 44 1.27 SPEED CURVE 00% .~;/_ /. 80% 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 S.,'E£D (,~Pm) 60 CAT ] 5 N DI DRY Ol-- THE DAT= ]-iF, E OF ~-F, 7_ DAY Z'OSTA-D 5Z'S_£D VE~. I C._ES O~SERVED DUB ;_ i I,. A,~IADOR VAL_L_£Y B~_VD. THURSDAY' 4-~5-85 94 FEET ~/.AST O? ANN ARBOR DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTL. 50~n P~RCSN'FiLE SPE~D 30 65tn PERCEN]'I~E SPE~D 34 i0 ~Y',P~ ~'AC~ S~'E~D ~-'~ 'FO 35 ~=Rw=N, iN PACE SP~ED RANGS C,F~ SZ'E~DS 23 'FO 41 SKEt4NESS INDEX 1. ii CUPULATiVE S.-"E~D CLiRVE SPEED NUM- F-'ERCNT. "*' '.¥'" ':'-'- ' i 06 i 06 24 1 1.06 &. 13 25 z+ 4.~o~-'~ 6. 38 26 8 8. 5i i4. 89 2:'7 6 · 6. 3,.S ,_:' :[ . 2-28 2-'8 i5 i5. 96 37.-'~ ;--'9 8 8. 52 45. 74 30 ii i1.70 57.45 :'* 7 7. 45 64. 8'9 32 10 i~D. 64 75. 53 >'"' 7 7. 45 S'-Z. '98 34 9 9. 57 9;:'.,_,,_,== ,:.,'.::, ,B 6. 58 98. 94 36 iZl l~l. IDO 9&~. 94 37 ;Zt 0. ~ 0_ 9:3 · 94 38 ,Zi :Z~. ,Z,Z~ 08.54 39 0 ~Z~. 00 58. 54 40 ¢Z¢ 0. 0 :D '-C' 8. '94 42 0 :D. ~7 :D i 00. 00 43 IZi 0. 00 100. 00 45 0 0. 00 100. 00 46 0 0. 00 100. 00 48 ~ZI 0. 00 100. 00 49 0 O. 00 l~DO. 00 5,D 0 0. 00 i 00. 00 S1 0 0. ~0 10~. 00 5~ 0 0. 00 100. 00 53 0 0. 00 100. 00 54 0 0. 00 100. 00 55 0 O. 00 i00. 00 56 0 0. 00 i 00. ~Z'. 0 57 0 0. 00 100. OO 58 0 O. ~0 lO0. O;D 59 0 g,. 00 I00. 00 6*ZI 0 0. 00 i00. 00 6,E 0 O. 00 10~.00 100 7'- , 80% 70% 40% 30% 20% i ~% I i I 1 I I t I 1 1 t i 30 40 50 60 70 FOR THi-] CiTY 0~' DLJBL. i;~ LOCATION AmADOR VALL_EY B,_VD. DIRECT I O;xi D~Y OF' 'i'F:E WEEK D~-T.-_- 'i'ih'iE OF' THE DAY POSTED SZ-'EED ;_i,¥1iT VEH~ CL~S OBSERVED £AS'FBOU~D THURSDAY 4-~5-85 89 FEET EAST ©~-- A,'~N ARBOR DEVELOPMENT RESiDENTL. 50tn ~=~..~,~ SZ'EED 30 ~5~h PERCENTILE S~EED 33 1~ ~i~'H PACE SPE~D ~o'-'= TO ~4 PERCENT iN PACE SPEED 84 RANGE G~ SZ'E~DS '2~ TO 46 Si<E~NESS INDEX 1. OG CUNULATiVE SPEED CURVE CUMUL. A'RC~T. 100% 5.62 15. 73 ~4.. 7;--' ~ ,. 35. 96 42. 70 4'9. 44 62. 9~ 80% 74. 16 84. 27 85. 39 89. ~9 70% 93. 26 96. B3 97. 75 97. 75 g~% 97.75 S'~. ~8 98. 88 50% 98. 88 9,S. 88 98.88 00.00 40 % i 2hZ). O~Z~ 100. 00 i~n~. 00 i 0~. 00 30% 100. mZ~2m 100. 00 i 00. 00 100. G~ ,D i 00. 00 10 0. O,D 10g. 00 100. 00 i i i i o 10 ;-20 i i I i i i I I I I I I I 1 I I i I i i t i i I i i I I I I I I i i i t i t i I I- i 1 i 30 40 50 60 SZ, EED