Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 - 3116 Establish Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 3, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SUBJECT: Establish Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road Alignment Project Prepared by: Erwin Ching, Associate Civil Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will review and consider an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum and will consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to establish the precise alignment for the right-of-way lines for Tassajara Road between Palisad es Drive and the Alameda-Contra Costa County Limit Line. The proposed alignment will revise the existing alignment in the northerly segment of Tassajara Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for the Future Right- of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County Limit Line. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening Project, included in the City’s approved 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (ST0116), is part of the larger multi- jurisdictional Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Realignment Project that extends from Palisades Drive in the City to Windemere Parkway in Contra Costa County. This project will be a joint effort between the City and Contra Costa County. The City’s share of the total project’s estimated cost is $12.5 million, which Staff anticipates being funded by State Gas Tax, Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (SB-1) funds, and Traffic Impact Fees. There is no impact to the General Fund. DESCRIPTION: Background The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan identify Tassajara Road as a six - to eight-lane arterial roadway linking several developments in Eastern Dublin with Contra Costa County (County) to the north, where the roadway name changes to Camino Tassajara, and the I-580 freeway and City of Pleasanton to the south. In 1999 and Page 2 of 4 2004, the City adopted right-of-way lines for Tassajara Road, between I-580 and the northern boundary of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 as Ordinance No. 20-99 and between the northern boundary of Dublin Ranch Phase 1 to Alameda - Contra Costa County limit line as Ordinance No. 21-04. In coordination with the Contra Costa County, a revised alignment of Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara was proposed between Palisades Drive in the City and Windemere Parkway in the County, to improve the existing horizontal alignment and to improve traffic safety. A conceptual alignment was included as an alternative within the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Moller Ranch (now Tassajara Hills) development project, which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2012, as Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-45. On February 16, 2016, the City Council approved the addition of the Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening Project into the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and directed staff to proceed with the preliminary design of a revised alignment of Tassajara Road, which includes four lanes, instead of six lanes, north of North Dublin Ranch Drive. The reduction from six lanes to four lanes was supported by a study initiated by the City and Contra Costa County, “Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis” (“Traffic Analysis”), which was based on up -to-date land-use estimates along with refined street network data anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) and in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Traffic Analysis concluded that reducing Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara from six to four lanes (two in each direction) between North Dublin Ranch Drive in the City and Windemere Parkway in the County (Figure 1) would result in similar levels-of-service at intersections, minimal traffic diversion to other roads, and minimal increase in travel times compared to a six -lane configuration. Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 7.68 - Establishing Right-of-Way Lines allows for establishment of right-of-way lines for purposes of future roadway extension, widening, or creation of space for future utilities, pedestrian pathways, fire and police emergency access to property, and all public rights-of-way. The Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission hold at least one public hearing on any proposed establishment of right-of-way lines. Upon completion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall submit its report and recommendation to the City Council. Furthermore, in accordance with State Planning and Zoning Law, a planning local agency (Planning Commission) must report on the project’s conformity to the General Plan as to the location, purpose, and intent of t he future right-of-way prior to the establishment of said right-of way lines. Additionally, an environmental analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be completed for the proposed right-of-way alignment. On February 11, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted a Resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the City Council consider an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (Attachment 5) and recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to establish precise alignment for the future Right-of- Way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and the Alameda -Contra Costa County Limit Line. Page 3 of 4 The Planning Commission also reviewed and recommended the adoption of a General Plan amendment and an Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) amendment related to the Tassajara Road Alignment Project. The General Plan amendment and EDSP amendment did not include any land use changes, but instead proposed modifying the number of lanes on Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive to the Alameda - Contra Costa County Limit from six lanes to four lanes. If the City Council adopts the Resolution of Intention, a public hearing date of March 17, 2020, will be set. At the public hearing, City Coun cil will hear public testimony, review the proposed right-of-way lines, and then consider the Initial Study/CEQA Addendum and consider establishing the right-of-way lines by the first reading of an ordinance. On this same public hearing date, City Council will also consider approving the General Plan amendment and EDSP amendment. This agenda item was originally scheduled for February 18, 2020 but was moved to ensure that the CEQA documents reflected in the packet were accurate. ANALYSIS: The establishment of right-of-way lines are intended to reserve sufficient right-of-way for future road construction. Adoption of an ordinance to establish such lines will not result in the immediate acquisition of any property but will preclude property owners from constructing structures within the right-of-way area. The process of acquiring right-of- way will not begin until after the project’s final design has been completed to ensure that the required right-of-way has been accurately determined. Land use designations and density of development surrounding the proposed revised alignment for Tassajara Road are not modified through the proposed creation of the right -of-way lines. The existing land uses in General Plan and EDSP will remain as they currently exist. The Municipal Code requires that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to establish right-of-way lines (Attachment 2). The legal description and plat map (Attachment 4) for the proposed right-of-way lines show the right-of-way that will be required. Only one property will be affected by the proposed revised alignment and the impact on this property is approximated in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Assessor’s Parcel Number Property Owner Right-of-way Acquisition in Square Feet (SF) 986-0004-001-00 Singh Family Properties LP 28,696 SF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Potential environmental impacts of the project were previously assessed in the EDSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #91103064) in 1993, which analyzed the future development of all of Eastern Dublin, including the future widening of Tassajara Road from two to six lanes. In 2004, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH #2004042008) for a precise alignment of Tassajara Road for the ultimate widening to six lanes from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the Alameda-Contra Costa County limit line. Page 4 of 4 The current project would reduce the number of travel lanes within the same area as previously studied, from six lanes to four lanes. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the City completed an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (Attachment 5) which analyzed the proposed project including its footprint and the proposed permanent right -of-way lines for Tassajara Road, and concluded that the project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the 1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/MND, and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met. No further environmental review is required for the project. The Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (Attachment 1) on February 11, 2020, recommending the City Council review and consider the Tassajara Road Alignment IS/Addendum and to adopt a Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for the Future Right-of-way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and the Alameda-Contra Costa County Limit Line. Prior to introducing an ordinance establishing the right-of-way lines, the City Council will first consider the IS/Addendum for the project and then consider approving the GP and EDSP amendments. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A copy of this report has been provided to all property owners abutting the proposed revised alignment. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution Recommending that the City Council Consider an IS/CEQA Addendum and Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for Tassajara Road 2. Resolution of Intention to Establish Precise Alignment for the Future Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road 3. Exhibit 1 to Resolution of Intention 4. Exhibit A to Resolution of Intention - Legal Description and Plat Map 5. Initial Study/CEQA Addendum 6. CIP ST0116 Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening RESOLUTION NO. 20-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER AN INITIAL STUDY/CEQA ADDENDUM PREPARED FOR THE TASSAJARA ROAD ALIGNMENT PROJECT AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR THE FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD BETWEEN PALISADES DRIVE AND ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIMIT LINE WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road by Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Re solution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the “1993 EIR”) that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six-lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of-Way Alignment Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the “2004 IS/MN”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the alignment previously approved in May 2004 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel lanes from six lanes to four lanes for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1, attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the Alameda-Contra Costa County limit line; and WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right-Of-Way Lines on Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and WHEREAS, the Right-Of-Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right-Of-Way Lines pass are within the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and consistent with, the General Plan; and WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right-Of-Way Lines will not have a substantial adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvements; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (the “Addendum”) for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of-Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in 1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/MN and no other CEQA standards for supplemental review are met; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2020 on the proposed establishment of the Right-Of-Way Lines, for which proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Dublin Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the 1993 EIR and 2004 IS/MN referenced above, before taking action on the Project, and the Planning Commission did further hear and consider all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove as set forth before taking any action; and WHEREAS, all of the above Resolutions and Ordinances are incorporated by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, on the basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 1993 EIR, the 2004 IS/MN, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the Planning Commission, that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention to establish Right -Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda-Contra Costa County. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mittan, Benson, Thalblum, Kothari, Grier NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager 3476044.2 RESOLUTION NO. XX-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN CONSIDER AN INITIAL STUDY/CEQA ADDENDUM AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR THE FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES FOR TASSAJARA ROAD BETWEEN PALISADES DRIVE AND ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA COUNY LIMIT LINE WHEREAS, the City of Dublin adopted Right-Of-Way Lines for Tassajara Road by Ordinance No. 20-99 and Ordinance No. 21-04; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51 -93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, SCH #91103064) (the “1993 EIR”) that analyzed the ultimate development of Tassajara Road at six travel lanes; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for a precise alignment of a future six-lane major roadway within the Eastern Dublin Planning Area (Tassajara Road/Fallon Road Ultimate Road Right -of-Way Alignment Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH #2004042008) (the “2004 IS/MN”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 7.68, the City of Dublin has proposed a revised alignment for portions of Tassajara Road that differs slightly from the alignment previously approved in May 2004 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project includes a programmatic change in the number of ultimate travel lanes from six lanes to four lanes for the portion of Tassajara Road as depicted on Exhibit 1, attached to this Resolution and hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the affected segment of Tassajara Road is between Palisades Drive and the Alameda-Contra Costa County limit line; and WHEREAS, to complete the Project, the alignment of Right-Of-Way Lines on Tassajara Road between Palisades Drive and Alameda -Contra Costa County line must be adjusted; and WHEREAS, the Right-Of-Way Lines are appropriate and compatible with the existing and planned land uses and will not overburden public services; and WHEREAS, the properties through which the proposed Right-Of-Way Lines pass are within the boundary of Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and therefore will be encompassed by, and consistent with, the General Plan; and WHEREAS, precise alignment for the future Right-Of-Way Lines will not have a substantial adverse effect on safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvements; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21166, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require that when an EIR or negative declaration has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that one or more of the following exists: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, Dublin has completed an Initial Study/CEQA Addendum (the “Addendum”) for the Project as shown in the Initial Study/CEQA Addendum for the Tassajara Road Ultimate Right -Of-Way Alignment Project prepared by Jerry Haag on January 2020 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Addendum concluded that the Project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the 1993 EIR or the 2004 IS/MN and no other CEQA standards for supplemental revisions are met; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations and testimony at a public hearing on February 11, 2020, adopted Resolution 20- 04, recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution of Intention . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, on the basis of substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 1993 EIR, the 2004 IS/MN, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the City Council, that the environmental effects of the proposed Project were sufficiently analyzed and that an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Project will not result in any new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of any significant impacts identified in the previous CEQA documents and no further environmental review under CEQA is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts this Resolution of Intention and calls for a public hearing pursuant to Sections 7.68.080 through 7.68.100 of the Dublin Municipal Code, at 7:00 p.m. on March 17, 2020, in the City of Dublin City Council Chambers, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California, to hear protests and objections to the establishment of the proposed Right-Of-Way lines as depicted on the legal description and plat map attached hereto as Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to post this Resolution of Intention in accordance with Section 7.68.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code at least 10 days before the public hearing. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 3476237.1 MEDP6 CO�141V �� COSH � � . 0 C%" �%t f LEGEND: SEGMENT OF FUTURE TASSAJARA RD. THAT WILL BE REDUCED FROM 6- TO 4-LANES 'w PROPOSED REVISED ALIGNMENT OF TASSAJARA ROAD '-'—PALISADES DR. IL4, � "R4 ��ANE TASSAJARA N. DUBLIN ROAD RANCH DR. S. DUBLIN RANCH DR. b LANES GLEASC►N DR. ■ CENTRAL PKWY. ■ E ■ DUBLIN BLVD, B LAN ES�— _- Source: City of Dublin it N I-580 v . 19702-020 1/2S/2020 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR TASSAJARA ROAD WIDENING DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP, AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT SERIES NO. 2006392818, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH CORNER OF PARCEL B OF THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 8133" RECORDED IN BOOK 343 OF MAPS AT PAGES I 1 THROUGH 19, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, COMMON TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TASSAJARA ROAD, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP, TFIENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TASSAJARA ROAD, ALONG A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 833.00 FEET, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 56053'23" EAST, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18013144" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 265.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE THF, FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1. ALONG ANON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 833.00 FEET, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 75°07'07" EAST, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20057'08" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 304.62 FEET; 2. NORTH 06004115" EAST, 72.56 FEET TO TFIE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF SINGH; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1, SOUTH 73050'31" WEST, 4.78 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 73 052'02" WEST, 162.51 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES: 1. SOUTH 25042'31"EAST, 368.54 FEET; 2. NORTH 75007'07" EAST, 16.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 28,696 SQ, FT MORE OR LESS PORTION OF APN 986-0004-001-00 END OF DESCRIPTION P:\19702\SRV\Mapping\Desc\19702_ROW DEDICATION-7.doc PREPARED BY: IAN B CE 1VjAj�'DONALD LICEN EDL44D SURVEYOR NO.8817 STATE CALIFORNIA ® Zqy DATE 9702-020 1/2S/2020 Page 2 of 3 P:\19702\SRV\Mapping\Desc\19702_ROW DEDICATION-7.dac GON P UN�Y P GO kA GS��DOF DU9�-1N SINGH FAMILY PROPERTIES LP APN 936-0004-001-00 SERIES NO, 2006392313 P.0.8. P.O.C. EX PROP R/W SF (R) AREA TO BE DEDICATED 28,696± SF PROP R/W EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 OF 3 ARW r � \ - SEE D\TAIL THIS SKEET \ ca o r' p 6 O 1p a� P.O.B Curve Table Curve # Radius Delta Les31 G1 3000000, 0015'03" Line Table Line # Bearing Length L1 N6004'15"E 72.56' L2 N75007'07"E 16.99' TRACT 8102 d \ 347 M. 50-70 N610 J `vj90 EX R/W \\�rn� w o cp \Cc> o, BOUNDARY OF DESCRIPTION EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE CONTROL LINE COUNTY LINE ANGLE POINT POINT OF BEGINNING POINT OF COMMENCEMENT EXISTING PROPOSE RIGHT OF WAY SQUARE FEET RADIAL BEARING oo s Lp, C \ P.O.G. PARCEL 8 TRA CT 3133 343 Al, I I Tassa Capacit Final Re By 1970 Broadw Oakland, CA  (510) 763‐20   March 19, 20 jara R ty Analy eport   way, Suite 740 94612  61  015  Road/C ysis 0  Caminno Tasssajaraa Tassajara Capacity A Client  DKS Projec Project Na Related Ta Document File Path  Date Docu   Versi Numb 0‐1  0‐2  0‐3  0‐4  1‐0    a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra   ct Number  me  sk / WBS Num  Name  ment Issued  ion  ber  11/ 11/ 11/ 2/1 3/1 no Tassajara aft Report City of D 14112‐0 Tassaja mber N/A   Tassaja p:\p\14 tassajar March 1 Date  /18/2014 I /19/2014 R /21/2014 D 18/2015 U 19/2015 F Docume Dublin  001  ra Road/Camin ra Road/Camin 4\14112‐001 ci ra capacity ana 19, 2015      Versi D nitial Documen Reviewed and u Draft Report  Updated with c Final Report  i nt Descr no Tassajara Ca no Tassajara Ca ty of dublin on alysis draft tech ion Contr Description o nt  updated  comments from iption   apacity Analys apacity Analys n‐call tassajara hnical report.d rol of Change  m City of Dubli is    is Draft Report  rd\07 delivera docx  in  March t  ables\camino  Author JMP  JMP  JMP  JMP/DCM  JMP/DCM  19, 2015 r  Tassajara Capacity A Table o TABLE OF APPENDIC LIST OF FI LIST OF TA EXECUTIV STUDY  SUMMA CONCLU EXISTING  STUDY  STUDY  ANALYSIS STUDY  Scena Scena Mode LEVEL O Signa Road CCTA TR ROADW INTERS CCTA TR SIGNIFI Contr City o a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra of Conten F CONTENTS .. CES ............... IGURES ......... ABLES .......... VE SUMMARY APPROACH .. ARY OF RESU USIONS ........ ROADWAY S INTERSECTIO ROADWAY SE S METHODOL SCENARIOS .. ario #1 – Fou ario #2 – Six‐l el Adjustmen OF SERVICE M alized Intersec way Segment RAVEL DEMA WAY SEGMEN ECTION VOLU RAVEL DEMA CANT IMPAC ra Costa Coun of Dublin ...... no Tassajara aft Report nts .................... .................... .................... .................... Y .................. ..................... LTS ............... ..................... SETTING ....... ONS ................ EGMENTS ..... LOGY ............ ..................... r‐lane Capaci lane Capacity ts ................. METHODOLOG ctions ........... ts .................. AND MODEL .. T VOLUME FO UME FORECAS AND MODEL R T CRITERIA ... nty and Tri‐Va ..................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ty on Tassaja y on Tassajara ..................... GIES AND PAR ..................... ..................... ..................... ORECAST MET ST METHODO REVIEW ......... ..................... alley Transpo ..................... i .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .................... ...................... ...................... .................... ...................... ra Road/Cam a Road/Camin ...................... RAMETERS..... ...................... ...................... ...................... THODOLOGY OLOGY ........... ...................... ...................... rtation Counc ...................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... mino Tassajara no Tassajara . ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Y .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... cil ................. ..................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... a ................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... March .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .................... ...................... ...................... .................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 19, 2015 ....... I  ...... II  ..... III  ..... III  ...... 1  ....... 1  ....... 2  ....... 5  ...... 6  ....... 6  ....... 6  ...... 8  ....... 8  ....... 8  ....... 8  ....... 8  ....... 9  ....... 9  ..... 10  ..... 11  ..... 11  ..... 12  ..... 12  ..... 13  ..... 13  ..... 13  Tassajara Capacity A Town Caltra EXISTING  EXISTIN INTERS ROADW FUTURE C 2040 LA 2040 SE INTERS ROADW FINDINGS STUDY PA Appen APPEND APPEND APPEND APPEND APPEND   a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra n of Danville . ans ............... CONDITIONS NG TRAFFIC VO ECTION PEAK WAY PEAK HO CUMULATIVE AND USE DES ELECT‐LINK A ECTION PEAK WAY PEAK HO S AND CONCL ARTICIPANTS  dices DIX A INTERSE DIX B ROADW DIX C MODEL  DIX D LANE AS DIX E SELECT‐ no Tassajara aft Report ..................... ..................... S .................. OLUMES AND K HOUR LEVEL UR LEVEL OF  E (2040) COND CRIPTION ..... NALYSIS ....... K HOUR LEVEL UR LEVEL OF  LUSIONS ....... ................... ECTION LEVE WAY SEGMENT LINK VOLUM SSUMPTIONS ‐LINK ANALYS   ..................... ..................... .................... D LANE CONF L OF SERVICE  SERVICE ANA DITIONS ....... ..................... ..................... L OF SERVICE  SERVICE ANA .................... .................... L OF SERVICE T LEVEL OF SE MES  S  SIS  ii ...................... ...................... .................... IGURATIONS ANALYSIS (EX ALYSIS (EXIST .................... ...................... ...................... ANALYSIS (CU ALYSIS (CUMU .................... .................... E ANALYSIS  ERVICE ANALY ..................... ..................... .................... .................... XISTING CON TING CONDITI .................... ..................... ..................... UMULATIVE 2 ULATIVE 2040 .................... .................... YSIS  ..................... ..................... .................... ..................... DITIONS) ...... ONS) ............ .................... ..................... ..................... 2040 CONDIT 0 CONDITION .................... .................... March ...................... ...................... .................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .................... ...................... ...................... TIONS) ........... NS) ................. .................... .................... 19, 2015 ..... 14  ..... 14  .... 14  ..... 14  ..... 18  ..... 19  .... 20  ..... 20  ..... 20  ..... 24  ..... 29  .... 31  .... 32  Tassajara Capacity A List of Figure 1 ‐  Figure 2 ‐  Figure 3 ‐  Figure 4 ‐  Figure 5 ‐  Figure 6 ‐  Figure 7 ‐  Figure 8 ‐  List of Table 1 –  Table 2 –  Table 3 –  Table 4 –  Table 5 –  Table 6 –  Table 7 –  Table 8 –  Table 9 –  Table 10 – a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra Figures Study Area .. Lane Configu Existing Cond Existing Cond 4‐Lane Cumu 6‐Lane Cumu 4‐Lane Cumu 6‐Lane Cumu Tables Study Interse List of Deficie Signalized Int Roadway Seg Existing Cond Existing Cond 2040 Select‐L Cumulative 2 Cumulative 2 – Cumulative  no Tassajara aft Report ..................... urations ........ dition Traffic  dition Link Vo ulative 2040 C ulative 2040 C ulative 2040 C ulative 2040 C ections and Ju ent Intersecti tersection LO gment LOS Th ditions Interse dition Roadwa Link Analysis  2040 Conditio 2040 Conditio 2040 Conditi ..................... ..................... Volumes ...... olumes .......... Condition Lin Condition Lin Condition Tra Condition Tra urisdiction ..... ons under Fu OS Thresholds hresholds and ection Level o ay Segment L Volumes....... ons Intersectio ons Intersectio ions Roadway iii ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... k Volumes .... k Volumes .... affic Volumes affic Volumes ...................... uture 2040 Tra  and Definitio d Definitions .. of Service ...... Level of Servic ...................... on Level of Se on Level of Se y Segment Le ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .................... .................... ..................... affic Conditio ons ............... ..................... ..................... ce ................. ..................... ervice – AM P ervice – PM P evel of Service ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ons ................ ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... Peak Hour ..... Peak Hour ..... e ................... March ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 19, 2015 ....... 7  ..... 15  ..... 16  ..... 17  ..... 22  ..... 23  ..... 27  ..... 28  ....... 3  ....... 4  ....... 9  ..... 10  ..... 18  ..... 19  ..... 21  ..... 24  ..... 25  ..... 30  Tassajara Capacity A Execut The City o Tassajara  Route of  future gr developm lanes and standards Tri Valley Tassajara  Town of D staff, Alam County Tr Study A Key inters Dublin, D determine operate t to evalua traffic imp Scenario # With an a City of Du the study expected  Avenue, C via Highla six lanes  existing tr Scenario # With an  whether  between  demand f expected                     1 Dougher a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra tive Summ of Dublin and Road/Camin Regional Sig rowth in tra ments in the p d intersection s of Contra Co y Transportat is from Dubl Danville in Co meda County ransportation Approach sections and  Danville and  e if two or th he roadway a te the numb pact on local  #1 – Four‐lan assumed cap ublin in Alame  assessed wh to divert to Collier Canyon and Road. Wh were assume ravel lanes alo #2 – Six‐lane  assumed cap relevant stan I‐580 and I‐ forecast and L to attract ad                         rty Valley Sett no Tassajara aft Report mary d Contra Cos o Tassajara R nificance in t affic along t proximate reg n configuratio osta County,  tion Plan/Act in Boulevard  ontra Costa C y staff, San R n Authority st roadway seg San Ramon,  hree travel la acceptably un er of lanes n roadways in t e Capacity on acity of four  eda County to hether relevan  use local ro n Road, and N hile the majo ed south of D ong the roadw Capacity on T pacity of six  ndards would 680 to avoid LOS analysis t ditional traffi                     tlement Agre sta County ar Road corridor the Tri‐Valley the study ro gion. The pur on needed to the City of D tion Plan1. T in the City of County. This Ramon and D aff.  gments in th and Contra  anes per direc nder future (2 eeded to me the Tri‐Valley n Tassajara Ro lanes on Tas o Sycamore V nt standards  oadways such North Liverm ority of Tassaj Dublin Boulev way segment Tassajara Roa lanes on Ta d be met and d congestion  that widening ic of approxim eement (1994 1 re planning t r to meet fut y Transportat oadway will rpose of this  o operate Ta Dublin, the Ci The study ro f Dublin in Ala study was co Danville staff, e study area Costa Coun ction are nee 2040) traffic c eet the releva y area from po oad/Camino T ssajara Road/ Valley Road in would be me h as El Charr ore Road to a jara Road/Ca vard along Ta t.  ad/Camino Ta assajara Road d whether so on I‐580 an g Tassajara Ro mately 100 ve 4)  to improve tr ture multi‐mo tion Plan/Act result prim study was to assajara Road ty of Danville adway segm ameda Count onducted in  , and Contra  a were select ty staff. The eded on Tass conditions. Tw ant standards ossible traffic Tassajara  /Camino Tass n the Town of et and wheth ro Road/Fallo access Tassaj mino Tassaja assajara Road assajara  d and Camin ome traffic w nd I‐680. It w oad/Camino T ehicles per ho ransportation odal transpo tion Plan and marily from  o determine t d/Camino Ta e, the City of  ment of Tassa ty to Sycamor collaboration Costa Count ted in consult e objective o sajara Road/ wo traffic sce s and to dete c diversions d sajara from G f Danville in C her traffic to/f on Road, Isa jara Road/Cam ara was mode d consistent  o Tassajara,  would use thi was determin Tassajara fro our each duri March n facilities alo rtation needs d it is expect planned res the number o ssajara to m San Ramon  ajara Road/ re Valley Roa n with City of ty and Contr tation with C of the study  /Camino Tass enarios were  ermine the p described as f Gleason Drive Contra Costa  from I‐580 w bel Avenue, mino Tassaja eled with fou with the num the study a is roadway a ned from the m four to six  ing both the A 19, 2015 ong the  s. It is a  ted that  sidential  of travel  eet the  and the  Camino  d in the  f Dublin  ra Costa  Cities of  was to  ajara to  studied  otential  ollows:   e in the  County,  would be  Portola  ra Road  ur lanes,  mber of  assessed  as a link  e travel  lanes is  AM and  Tassajara Capacity A PM. This  Road, Wi areas sou insignifica area. It is arterials i Road is e Doughert The study traffic con including  The CCTA because i Alameda  travel dem link analy area that  lanes. The Capacity M Summa This is an Road/Cam analysis i study area                     a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra is the traffic ndemere Par uth of Contra ant (less than s also not ex in Contra Cos expected to  y Road/Dubli y roadway seg nditions. The the Mollar Ra A countywide t produced a countywide t mand model i ysis was cond may result f e intersection Manual analy ary of Resu n investigativ mino Tassaja ncluded leve a as listed in T no Tassajara aft Report c that would  rkway and Bo a Costa Coun n 1 percent) a xpected to s sta County a relieve traff n Boulevard  gments and in  existing con anch Traffic Im e travel dema a more conse travel deman is included in ducted to det from widenin n and roadwa ysis methodol ults ve study to d ra acceptabl l of service a Table 1.  have otherw ollinger Cany nty. The shif and does not significantly i nd Alameda  ic congestion intersection.  ntersections w ditions were mpact Study and model w ervative traffi nd model. The  the Analysis  termine trave g Tassajara R ay segment le logy.  determine th y according  analysis for 1 2 wise used oth on Road, Air ft in traffic f t affect the o mpact other County. How n along Dou      were analyze analyzed us and the 2014 was used to f ic forecast th e detailed dis Methodology el patterns an Road/Camino evel of servic he number o to establish 12 intersectio her arterials  rway Parkway from the var overall travel  r intersection wever, a sligh ugherty Road ed under exist ing recent tr 4 Tri‐Valley Tr forecast the  han the Dubl scussion on t y section of t nd the extent o Tassajara fro e analysis we of travel lane ed and app ons and six (6 such as Dou y and I‐680 t rious listed a distribution  ns and roadw ht shift in tra d and particu ting and cum affic data fro ransportation cumulative 2 in travel dem the reason fo his report. Fu t of traffic di om four trav ere conducte es needed to licable signif 6) roadway s March ugherty Road to and from j arterials is re pattern in th way segment affic from Do ularly at the  ulative (futur om multiple s n/Action Plan 2040 traffic v mand model a or selecting th urthermore, a iversion in th vel lanes to si d using the H o operate Ta ficance criter segments wit 19, 2015 d, Fallon  job rich  elatively  he study  ts along  ugherty  critical  re 2040)  sources,  .   volumes  and the  he CCTA  a select‐ he study  ix travel  Highway  assajara  ria. The  thin the  Tassajara Capacity A Table 1 – S No  1 San 2 San 3 Tass 4 Tass 5 Fall 6 Cam 7 El C 8 El C 9 Fall 10 Fall 11 Cam 12 Cam   Study Roa The appl significan 1. Ta 2. Ta 3. Ta 4. C 5. C 6. C Assumptio For the p optimized consisten Level of S Intersecti intersecti hours. Th hour but  Fallon Ro peak hou The Cami County G a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra Study Intersect Inte ta Rita Rd/I‐58 ta Rita Rd/Tas sajara Rd/Dub sajara Rd/Glea on Rd/Camino mino Tassajara/ Charro Rd/I‐580 Charro Rd/Fallo on Rd/Dublin B on Rd/Silvera  mino Tassajara/ mino Tassajara  adway Segme icable level  ce is LOS E.   assajara Road assajara Road assajara Road amino Tassaj amino Tassaj amino Tassaj on  urpose of the d by the var t basis to asse ervice Analys ions LOS Res ons currently e Tassajara R operates una ad/Camino T r but operate no Tassajara/ eneral Plan s no Tassajara aft Report tions and Juris ersection Name 80 EB off‐ramp sajara Rd/I‐580 lin Blvd  ason Dr  o Tassajara/Tas /Highland Rd  0 EB off‐ramp  on Rd/I‐580 WB Blvd  Ranch Dr  /Windemere P and Crow Can ents  of services s d between Gl d between No d/Camino Tas ara from Win ara from Lusi ara from Crow e analysis, it w ious agencie ess the impac sis (Existing Tr sults – Based y operate acc oad/Dublin B acceptably at  Tassajara/Tas es unacceptab /Highland Ro standard duri sdiction  e  p  0 WB off‐ramp ssajara Rd  B ramps Pkwy nyon Rd standard for eason Drive a orth Dublin R ssajara from F ndemere Park itano Street t w Canyon Ro was assumed s under cum ct of the two  raffic Conditio d on the LOS eptably acco Boulevard inte LOS E under  sajara Road  bly at LOS F u ad intersectio ng the AM pe 3 Owne Caltrans  p Caltrans  City of Dub City of Dub City of Dub Contra Cos Caltrans  Caltrans  City of Dub City of Dub Contra Cos Town of Da r Tassajara R and North Du anch Drive to Fallon Road to kway to Lusita o Crow Canyo ad to Sycamo d that the sig mulative (futu study scenar ons)  S results und rding to appl ersection ope the City of D intersection o nder the City on operates u eak hour and rship  Ci Ci blin Ci blin Ci blin Ci ta County Co Ca Ca blin Ci blin Ci ta County Co anville To Road/Camino ublin Ranch D o Fallon Road o Windemere ano Street  on Road; and ore Valley Roa nalized study ure 2040) tra rios.  der Existing C icable LOS st erates accept Dublin standa operates acc y of Dublin sta unacceptably d operates ac Signal Opera ity of Pleasanto ity of Pleasanto ity of Dublin  ity of Dublin  ity of Dublin  ontra Costa Co altrans  altrans  ity of Dublin  ity of Dublin  ontra Costa Co own of Danvill o Tassajara, a rive  e Parkway  d   ad  y intersection affic conditio Conditions, n tandards duri ably at LOS C ard during the ceptably at LO andard durin y at LOS E und cceptably at L March tor  Appli LO Stan on D on D D D D ounty C D D D D ounty C e D a regional ro ns will be pro ons. This pro ine of the 1 ng AM and P C during the A e PM peak ho OS D during  g the AM pea der the Contr LOS C during  19, 2015 icable  OS  ndard  D  D  D  D  D  C  D  D  D D  C  D  oute of  oactively  ovides a  2 study  PM peak  AM peak  our. The  the PM  ak hour.  ra Costa  the PM  Tassajara Capacity A peak hou operates  Roadway  during AM faster dur Level of S Intersecti located u peak hou intersecti   Table 2 – L   Defic Tassajar Tassajar Fallon  Source: Notes:  a. Delay b. LOS = c. Analy analysis BOLD in   During th than the  Fallon Ro scenario.  During th intersecti E standar operate w Roadway  Drive ope 6‐lane sc expected  a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra r. Only the i worse than th LOS Results  M and PM pe ring the AM p ervice Analys ions LOS Res nder the City r or PM peak ons expected List of Deficien cient Intersect a Rd and Dubl ra Rd and Glea Rd and Dublin : DKS Associate y is in seconds  = Level of Serv ysis performed s  ndicates unacc e AM peak h 2014 Tri‐Vall ad/Dublin Bo   he PM peak ons are expe rd under both worse than LO LOS Results  erate at LOS C enarios the  to operate a no Tassajara aft Report ntersection o he 2014 Tri‐V – Under Exis ak hours in b peak hour.   sis (Cumulativ sults – Under y of Dublin ju k hour or bot d to operate u nt Intersections ion (#1 Del in Blvd 39 son Dr 97  Blvd 59 es, 2014  per vehicle an ice  d using Synchro ceptable LOS   hour, the Tas ey Transport oulevard inte k hour, the  cted to opera h scenarios. A OS E under th – Under Cum C or better du segment of  at LOS C or LO of Fallon Rd/ Valley Transpo ting Conditio both the nort ve/Future 204 r Cumulative urisdiction ar th according  unacceptably  s under Future AM Peak 1) 4‐Lane  lay LOS D .9 D  .8 F  .5 E  nd is based on a o 8.0 HCM 200 ssajara Road/ ation Plan/Ac rsection is ex Tassajara R ate worse tha Also, the Tas e six‐lane sce mulative 2040 uring AM and Tassajara Ro OS D during t 4 Camino Tass ortation Plan/ ons, all study  hbound and  40 Traffic Con 2040 Condit e expected t to the City o are listed in T e 2040 Traffic C k Hour  (#2) 6‐Lane  Delay LOS 40.2 D  90.4 F  52.1 D  average stoppe 0 based on lim /Gleason Driv ction Plan LO xpected to op Road/Gleason an the 2014 T ssajara Road/ enario.  0 Conditions, d PM peak ho oad between the AM peak ajara/Tassaja /Action Plan  roadway seg southbound  nditions)  tions, three ( o operate un of Dublin sign Table 2.   Conditions  PM (#1) 4‐Lan Delay LO 96.9  73.9  168.1  ed delay. mitations in HCM ve intersectio OS E standard perate worse n Drive and  Tri‐Valley Tra /Dublin Boule , all roadway  ours in both d n Gleason D k hour in both ara Rd during LOS E standa ments operat directions. G (3) of the 12 nacceptably u nificant impac M Peak Hour  ne (#2) 6‐ OS Delay  F 136.5  E 101.5  F 188  M 2010  on is expecte d under both e than LOS D  Fallon Roa nsportation P evard interse segments no directions. Un Drive and Du h directions.  March g the AM pea rd.   te at LOS C o Generally, spe 2 study inters under either ct criteria. Th App L Sta ‐Lane  LOS  F  F  F  ed to operate  scenarios w under the fo d/Dublin Bo Plan/Action P ection is expe orth of Dublin nder both 4‐la ublin Ranch D During the P 19, 2015 ak hour  r better  eeds are  sections   the AM  he three  plicable  LOS  ndard  D  D  D  e worse  hile the  our‐lane  oulevard  Plan LOS  ected to  n Ranch  ane and  Drive is  M peak  Tassajara Capacity A hour it op lane Scen scenarios Select‐lin there is n travel lan the study Road/Cam during the Conclus The selec both four overall tra intersecti The result similar le However, scenario p delay per time, the  southbou 10% to 15 It can the scenarios  any signif   a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra perates at LO nario than the .  k Analysis –  no significant  es on Tassaja y roadway fr mino Tasssaja e AM and PM sions t‐link analysi r lane and six avel distribut ons and road ts of the Cum evel of servic  for intersec provides less  r vehicle duri travel time s nd segment  5% travel time erefore be co that widenin icant benefit  no Tassajara aft Report OS F in the no e six lane sce The results o difference in ara Road/Cam rom four lan ra by less tha M peak hours.  s results indi x lane scenar tion pattern  way segment mulative Cond ce with sligh ctions that a than 10 seco ng the PM p savings is gen along Tassaja e savings dur oncluded from ng Tassajara R to motorists.   orthbound dir enario; howev of the select  n the traffic d mino Tasssaja nes to six lan an 100 vehicle   icate that the io. The shift  in the study  ts along arter ditions analys ht improveme re expected  onds of saving peak hour. Ad nerally under ara Road bet ing the PM pe m the similar Road/Camino  .   5 rection. The t ver there is v link analysis  distribution p ara is increas nes is expec es per hour in ere are no si in traffic is re area. It is als rials in Contra ses for the fo ents at som to experien gs per vehicle dditionally, w r 5% of the se tween Gleaso eak hour.   ity in results  Tassajara fro travel time is very little dif for roadway attern in the ed from four cted to slight n both northb gnificant diff elatively insig so not expec a Costa Count our‐lane and s e intersectio ce intolerab e during the A while the six‐l egment trave on Drive and  of the analy om four to six s consistently fference in LO ys in the stud e study area w r to six lanes. tly increase  bound and so ferences in tr gnificant and cted to signif ty and Alame six‐lane scena ons under th le delays at  AM peak hou ane scenario el time with t North Ranch ysis for the fo x lanes is not  March  longer unde OS between t dy area indica when the num . However, w traffic on Ta outhbound dir ravel pattern  does not aff icantly impac eda County.  arios general he six‐lane sc LOS F, the  r, and an inc o shows lowe the exception h Drive which our‐lane and  expected to r 19, 2015 er the 4‐ the two  ate that  mber of  widening  assajara  rections  s under  fect the  ct other  ly show  cenario.  six‐lane  rease in  er travel  n of the  h shows  six‐lane  result in  Tassajara Capacity A Existin Study In Figure 1 s All of the  synchroni are opera ramp inte Rd/I‐580  Camino T intersecti Study R Tassajara  concrete  access lim directions Tassajara  of unsigna center‐tu roadway  bike lane  Tassajara  with a low side of the Camino T density of roadway.  posted sp Camino T concrete  speed lim Camino T raised con limit of 45 a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ng Roadwa ntersectio shows the stu study interse ized. The Cam ated by Contr ersections are WB off‐ramp assajara/Crow ons are all op Roadway S Road betwee median and  mited to only s of travel.  Road betwee alized access rn lane that  for the majo between Nor Road/Camin w density of  e roadway. It Tassajara bet f unsignalized The roadwa peed limit of 4 Tassajara betw median betw it of 45 mph  Tassajara from ncrete media 5 mph with ac no Tassajara aft Report ay Setting ons udy area and l ections are sig mino Tassajar ra Costa Cou e operated b p intersection w Canyon Ro perated by th Segments en Gleason D curbs on eit y signalized in en North Dub points. The  continues no rity of the se rth Dublin Ra no Tassajara b unsignalized  t has a posted tween Winde d access poin y segment h 45 mph.  ween Lusitan ween signalize with access li m Crown Can an between s ccess limited  g locations of t gnalized and  ra/Highland R nty. The El C by Caltrans. T ns are owned ad intersectio e City of Dub Drive and Nor her side of t ntersections a blin Ranch Dri segment has orth until Sh egment. It ha nch Drive and between Fall access point d speed limit o emere Parkw nts. The roadw has striped le no Street and ed intersectio imited to only nyon Road a signalized inte to only signa 6 he 12 study in operating “fr Road and Cam Charro Road/ The Santa Rit d by Caltrans  on is operate lin.  th Dublin Ran the roadway. along the roa ive and Fallon striped left‐t hadow Hill Dr as a posted s d Shadow Hill on Road and s. The roadw of 45 mph.  way and Lusit way segment eft turn lanes d Crow Canyo ons and curbs y signalized in nd Sycamore ersections an lized intersec ntersections. ree”. In other mino Tassajar /I‐580 EB off‐ ta Road/I‐580 but operate ed by the Tow nch Drive is a . It has a pos adway. There n Road is a tw turn lanes at rive and has peed limit of l Drive.  d Windemere way segment  tano Street i t has no med s at Highland on Road is a  s on both side ntersections a e Valley Road nd curbs on e ctions along t   r words the t ra/Windemer ‐ramp and Fa 0 EB off‐ram d by the City wn of Danville a four‐lane ro sted speed li e are Class II wo‐lane roadw t major acces  a curb on t f 45 mph. Th e Parkway is  has no media is a two‐lane dian or curb o d Road and F four‐lane roa es of the road along the roa d is a four‐la either side. It the roadway.  March traffic signals  e Road inters allon Road/I‐5 p and the Ta y of Pleasant e. The remain oadway with a mit of 45 m  bike lanes f way with low  ss points as w the east side ere is a nort a two‐lane r an or curb on e roadway w on either side Finley Road.  adway with a dway. It has a adway.  ane roadway  has a posted 19, 2015 are not  sections  580 WB  assajara  on. The  ning five  a raised  ph with  for both  density  well as a  e of the  hbound  oadway  n either  with low  e of the  It has a  a raised  a posted  y with a  d speed  NO SCALE A A AAAA AAAA A A 405 205 8 26 512 99W SPEED 20 1Figure 205 This symbol has white hairline edge for placing over darker backgounds 00% 11 Howard St/Boone Av A A AAAA AAAA A A 11.0 B 0.28 LT TH RT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT - Signalized Study Intersection & Number LEGEND 00 V/CLOS*Delay** 00.0 X 0.00 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTH RT - Lane Configuration - Stop Sign - Traffic Signal 000 *A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS **Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay 126 105 217 5 84 Study AreaCamino TassajaraP:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On-Call Tassajara Rd\06 GraphicsDougher ty RdAlcos ta B lvd Dublin Blvd Gleason DrVillage PkwyAma d or V all ey Blv d Owe n s D r W Las P o sit a s Bl v d Stoneridge Dr E B r a n c h P k w y Pimlico DrBlackhawk RdSilvera Ranch Dr Westminster Pl Tassajara Ranch Dr Tassajara Village Dr Buckingham Pl Parkhaven Dr Jasmine Wy Lawrence Wy Hansen Ln Shadow Creek Dr Knollview Dr Charbray St Lusitano St 12 6 11 5 10 4 3 2 9 8 71Dougher ty RdDougherty RdN. Dublin Ranch Rd Antone Wy S Dublin Ranch Rd Signal Hill Dr Turnberry Dr - Signalized Intersection - Danville/Dublin City Boundary - Contra Costa County Boundary City of Danville City of D u b l i n Contra C o s t a C o u n t y Alameda CountyCamino TassajaraCami n o Tassaj a r a Windemere P k w y Fa l l o n R d Tassajara RdAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes Tassajara Capacity A Analys Study S In order t traffic div Scenario With an a City of Du the study Charro Ro to access Road/Cam Boulevard segment.  Scenario With assu roadway t model as lanes from Plan.  Model Ad During th more accu adjustme  R p  A  C V  C Pa Appendix future sce In additio scenarios  a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra sis Method Scenarios o determine  ersions, the f o #1 – Four‐l assumed cap ublin in Alame y assesses wh oad/Fallon Ro s Tassajara R mino Tassajar d along Tassa o #2 – Six‐lan umed capacity to access Cam sumes six la m Windemer djustments e model scen urately the ex nts were mad evised the nu lanned roadw dded a centro oded Tassaja alley Road fo oded Tassaja arkway for Sc x C contains a enarios.   on, key roadw were revie no Tassajara aft Report dology the potentia following two lane Capacit acity of four  eda County to hether traffic oad, Isabel Av Road/Camino  ra is modeled ajara Road co ne Capacity y of six lanes  mino Tassajar nes from the e Parkway to nario develop xisting and fu de to the netw umber of lane way improvem oid connecto ara Road/Cam r Scenario #1 ara Road/Cam cenario #2.  a table and m way improve ewed to en l of traffic im o scenarios ar ty on Tassaj lanes on Tas o Sycamore V c to/from I‐58 venue, Portol Tassajara Ro  with four lan onsistent wit on Tassajar on Tassajara ra in Danville  e Tassajara R o Tassajara R pment proces uture roadwa work:  es along Tassa ments,  r from Silvera mino Tassajar 1, and  mino Tassajar maps showing ments were  nsure that  8 pact on local  e analyzed:  ara Road/C ssajara Road/ Valley Road in 80 is expecte a Avenue, Co oad via High nes, the upda h the numbe ra Road/Cam  Road, there  to avoid cong Road/I‐580 in anch Drive a ss the CCTA t ay network co ajara Road, Sa a Ranch Drive ra as a 4‐lan a as a 6‐lane g the number identified an the models   roadways in Camino Tass /Camino Tass n the Town of ed to divert t ollier Canyon hland Road.  ated CCTA Mo er of existing mino Tassaj is the possib gestion on I‐5 nterchange to ccording to t travel deman onfiguration i anta Rita Roa e to Tassajara ne facility fro e facility from r of travel lan nd the future accurately   the Tri‐Valle sajara sajara from G f Danville in C to use local r Road, and No While the m odel has six la g travel lanes jara ility that som 580 and I‐680 o Windemere the Contra Co nd model wa in the project ad and El Cha a Rd,  om Gleason D m Gleason Dr nes assumed  e model netw reflect the March ey area from p Gleason Drive Contra Costa  roadways suc orth Livermo majority of Ta anes south of s along the r me traffic will  0. The update e Parkway a osta County G s adjusted to t area. The fo rro Road to r Drive to Syca rive to Winde for the exist works for th  planned r 19, 2015 possible  e in the  County,  ch as El  re Road  assajara  f Dublin  oadway  use this  ed CCTA  nd four  General  o reflect  ollowing  reflect  amore  emere  ting and  e study  oadway  Tassajara Capacity A improvem Costa Cou  C Jo  Ex  H  Ex  Fa  Sa Level o Signalize A Level of the avera represent LOS A is c Valley Tra capacity.  Table 3 – S According capacity a during the Highway C a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ments. Some o unty’s Compre onstruction o oaquin Count xtension of D acienda Drive xtension of D allon Rd/El Ch anta Rita Roa f Service M ed Intersect f Service (LOS age delay p ting free‐flow considered ex ansportation  LOS definitio Signalized Inte L Sou Boa g to the City o analysis were e weekday A Capacity Man no Tassajara aft Report of the key pr ehensive Tran of HOV lanes y  Dublin Bouleva e widening  Dougherty Roa harro Road in ad interchang Methodolo tions S) evaluation er vehicle e w conditions t xcellent, whi Plan/Action ns, considerin rsection LOS T Level of  Service  A A  B  C  D  E  F  urce: 2000 High ard, 2000.  of Dublin, Mo e conducted  M peak hour  nual (HCM) op ojects that ar nsportation P s on I‐580 fr ard from Fallo ad   nterchange im e improveme ogies and P  is a qualitat experienced  to “F” repres le LOS E is co  Plan; and L ng vehicle de Thresholds and Average Cont (seconds/v ≤ 10  > 10 and ≤ 2 > 20 and ≤ 3 > 35 and ≤ 5 > 55 and ≤ 8 > 80  hway Capacity oller Ranch Tr on April 19,  (7:00 to 9:00 perations me 9 re included in Project List ar rom Tassajara on Road to Ai mprovements ents  Parameter ive descriptio during peak senting conge onsidered sat LOS F repres lay for signali d Definitions  trol Delay  vehicle)   F In 0  S M 5  S A 5  A T 0  U S  F E y Manual, Tran raffic Impact  2012. Inters 0 AM) and PM thodology an n the model n re:  a Road to V irway Boulev   rs on of an inte k travel peri ested conditi tisfactory op sents unacce ized intersect Descr Free flow/ nsignificant De Stable Operatio Minimal Delay Stable Operatio Acceptable Del Approaching U Tolerable Delay Unstable Opera Significant Dela Forced Flow/ Excessive Delay nsportation Re Study interse sections were M peak hour nd Synchro 8. networks acc Vasco Road a ard  rsection’s pe iods. LOS ca ions with lon erating cond eptable cond tions, are sho ription  elay  on/ on/ ay  nstable/  y  ation/ ay  y  esearch  ection vehicle e evaluated f (4:00 to 6:00 0 software.   March ording to the nd further to rformance ba an range fro ng delays. Ge itions under  ditions, at or own in Table 3 e counts used for traffic con 0 PM) using th 19, 2015 e Contra  o San  ased on  om “A”  enerally,  the Tri‐ r above  3.  d for the  nditions  he 2000  Tassajara Capacity A For signal intersecti the inters intersecti Roadway Measures performa used to c reflects th including  congested while LOS Plan; and vehicle tr As there  calculated delay for  Table 4 – R The above done by c                    2 According Transporta Capacity M a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ized intersect on. The LOS  section. A com on.   y Segments s of effective nce measure characterize v he factors tha control dela d conditions  S E is consider  LOS F repre avel speeds a is no coord d as the sum  study interse Roadway Segm Level  Servic A  B  C  D  E  F  Source: 20 e MOEs for e comparing the                         g to the 2013 C ation/Action Pl Manual for ana no Tassajara aft Report tions, this me is then based mbined avera ness (MOE)  es as signal d vehicular LOS at influence r y. LOS can r with long de red satisfacto esents unacce as a percenta ination betw of free flow  ctions within ment LOS Thres of  ce  Tr Perce 010 Highway C xisting condit e results of th                     CCTA Technica lan for Routes  lyses of impact ethodology de d on average age delay, we for roadway  elay, travel t S for a given  unning time a range from “ elays and ext ory operating  eptable cond age of free flo ween signals  travel time a  each study s sholds and De ravel Speed a entage of Fre Speed  >85 > 67 and ≤ 8 > 50 and ≤ 6 > 40 and ≤ 5 > 30 and ≤ 4 > 30  Capacity Manu tions provide he each propo l Procedures (p of Regional Sig ts of developm 10 etermines the e delay (in se eighted by ap segments re ime, and ave direction of  along each lin A” represent ensive queui conditions un ditions, at or  ow speed, are along the st long each stu segment.   finitions  as a  ee Flow  5  7  0  0  ual2 e a basis for e osed scenario p.26) and spec gnificance, “an ment or benefit e capacity of  conds per ve pproach volum eported in th erage speeds travel along  nk and the de ting free‐flow ing. Generally nder the Tri‐V above capac e shown in Ta tudy roadwa udy segment  Desc Primarily Free  Reasonably un operation  Stable Operati Less stable op Unstable Oper Significant Del Extremely low Extensive que evaluating the o.   cified in the 20 nalysts are enco ts from transpo each lane gro ehicle) for the me, and LOS  his analysis in . Through ve a roadway s elay incurred  w conditions  y, LOS A is c Valley Transp city. LOS def able 4 and m y segments,  and the aver ription   flow operatio nimpeded  ion  eration  ration/ lay  w speed/  uing  e proposed sc 14 Tri‐Valley  ouraged to use ortation impro March oup approach e movements is presented nclude such c ehicle travel s segment. Thi by through v to “F” repre onsidered ex portation Plan finitions, cons meet CCTA sta travel time  rage through n  cenarios. This e the 2010 Hig ovements”.  19, 2015 hing the  s within   for the  corridor  speed is  s speed  vehicles,  esenting  xcellent,  n/Action  sidering  andards.  will be  ‐vehicle  s will be  hway  Tassajara Capacity A CCTA T To estima version of also make interim d 5‐year in environm that set h land use  analysis. I the result Different  horizon y years bet Projection land use s The curre • A • A • P • P • O   For this ef • 20 • 20   For each  procedure Roadwa The volum general, o Instead, c produced illustrated Horizon  a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra Travel Dem ate the future f the CCTA tra es use of 201 raft land use  ncrements. I ental review  as not been r distributions  In general, th ts of this analy highway net years. The cu tween 2000 a n, the model  set for the sce nt countywid M Peak hour M Peak perio M peak hour, M Peak perio Off‐Peak perio ffort, the follo 013 (represen 040 (represen scenario, th es are further ay Segmen me forecasts  outputs from changes in for  by the trav d in the follow Year Volume no Tassajara aft Report mand Mode e year traffic  avel demand  0 count data Projections 2 t should be is currently  reviewed and and therefo he land use e ysis more con works are av rrent version and 2040. Fo interpolates enario year.  de travel dem ,  od (6‐10 AM), ,  od (3‐7 PM), a od, covering a owing model  nting the “exi nting Scenario he AM peak r described in nt Volume for the stud m the travel  recast deman vel demand  wing equation es = Existing ( el demand inpu model was u . The land us 2011 (Curren e noted tha underway an d approved by ore not appro stimates in P nservative co vailable in the n of the trave or scenario ye  the land use and model in   and  ll remaining h datasets wer isting year” m os 1 and 2 in  k hour and  n the followin e Forecast y segments w demand mo nd volumes b model, were n:  (Observed) V Mo 11 uts for the tra used. This mo e and socio‐d nt Regional Pl at the Cont nd will be bas y the local jur opriate for th Projections 20 mpared to re e model to r el demand m ears that are e between th ncludes the fo hours.  re used:  model scenari horizon year  PM peak ho g sections.  Methodol were develop odel were no etween the e e added to  Volumes + (Ho odel Forecast affic operatio odel set is cali demographics lans) which c tra Costa C sed on ABAG risdictions, it  he Tassajara  011 are highe esults based o represent net model can ge e not directly he nearest tw ollowing analy io),   2040).  our assignme logy ped using the ot used direc existing year a observed tr orizon Year M t)  onal analysis, ibrated to 200 s information over years 20 ountywide T G’s Projection includes an a Road/Camin er than Proje on Projections twork improv enerate scena y included in wo years in o ysis periods:  ents were u e CCTA trave ctly in the o and each futu affic volume Model Forecas March  the latest ap 00 traffic cou n is based on  010 through  Transportatio s 2013, but b approximatio o Tassajara c ections 2013, s 2013.   vements at d ario networks  the ABAG la order to deve tilized. The  el demand m operational a ure scenario  es. This appr st – “Existing 19, 2015 pproved  unts and  ABAG’s  2040 in  on Plan  because  n of the  capacity  making  different  s for all  and use  elop the  specific  odel. In  analysis.  year, as  roach is  g Year”  Tassajara Capacity A For new f used dire adjustme The 2013 used to fo growth w existing p volumes f The appro approach  Interse For the i procedure then appl Following intersecti This proce • G • C • A ex • A CCTA T As the lar demand m model by travel dem area, incl Parkway,  Road, El C The CCTA model vo compariso similar re being slig models a facilities b a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra facilities and  ectly for inp nts described  model datas orecast grow will be determ peak hour vol for both exist oach describ and departu ection Volu ntersection a es described  ying the Furn g this proced ons.  ess may be su enerate 2013 ompute the m pply Furness xisting turn m pply manual  Travel Dem rgest part of  model for the y comparing i mand model. uding but no Fallon Road Charro Road a A travel dema olumes, as th on showed th sults with re ghtly more co long Tassajar being coded d no Tassajara aft Report movements t put to the o d below.   set was used wth for the fu mined using th ume for each ing and futur ed above wa re links for th ume Forec analysis, an  above to det ness methodo dure, manua ummarized as 3 and 2040 m model growth  methodolog movement de adjustments  mand Mode the study co e roadway ca t with a) the . The compar ot limited to  , Gleason Dr and Stoneridg and model vo he City of D hat the two m spect to the  onservative.  ra Road and  differently in  that do not e operational  d for the “exi uture traffic c he respective h link. Appen re year scenar as used to de he study inter cast Metho expanded ap termine appr ology to dete al adjustmen s follows:  model forecast h for each link gy to comput mands and fo to balance de el Review rridor is in Co apacity analy e City of Dub rison mostly  the following rive, Central  ge Drive.  olumes were Dublin and th models (both  trip allocatio There were  Fallon Road, the two mod 12 exist today, t analysis, sub isting year” m conditions. Fo  peak hour m dix D contain rios.  evelop foreca rsections.  odology pproach was oach‐link and ermine individ ts were ma ts for each int k (2040 mode e individual t orecast appro emands betw ontra Costa C ysis. However lin travel dem focused in th g facilities: Ta Parkway, Du e compared w he Tri‐Valley based on lan on in the stud certain signi , but that di dels; the two  he horizon‐ye bject to the model foreca or AM and P models. This g ns maps of th asts for the a  used. This  d departure‐l dual turning  de to balan tersection ap el output min turning move oach and dep ween adjacent County, it wa r, DKS took a mand model he estimated  assajara Roa ublin Bouleva with the Alam y are incorpo d use forecas dy area, with ificant volum d not raise c models have ear model fo  reasonablen ast. The 2040 PM analysis p growth volum he study area arterial segm approach inv ink growth fo movements a nce demands pproach and d nus 2010 mod ement dema arture link gr t intersection s decided to  a first step in and b) the A peak hour v d/Camino Ta ard, Dougher meda county orated in Ala sts of Project  the volumes me difference concerns as  e different ass March orecast outpu ness and ba 0 model data periods, the f me was added a showing mo ments, as wel volved apply or each inter at each inter s between a departure link del output);  nd forecasts  rowth; and  ns.  use the CCTA n assessing th Alameda coun volumes in th assajara, Win rty Road, San wide travel d ameda Coun ions 2011) pr s in the CCTA es between t it was due t sumptions ab 19, 2015 uts were  alancing  set was  forecast  d to the  odel link  l as the  ying the  section,  section.  adjacent  k;  using  A travel  he CCTA  ntywide  he study  demere  nta Rita  demand  nty. The  roduced  A model  the two  o those  bout the  Tassajara Capacity A number o case.   Having co the Alam segment  analysis. T produced “gateway Signific Contra C The Tri‐Va such as in is an acce area rega evaluated 50 or mor The stan Plan/Actio At the int LOS stand intersecti threshold Project.  City of D An impac project w significant previously that the C already op uses HCM with the H a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra of lanes of the ompared the  eda countyw is located in  The model s  more conse capacity con cant Impac Costa County alley Transpo ntersections a ptable level o ardless of ho d under CCTA re project trip dard set for on Plan is LOS tersections of dard is LOS C  ons are regar  as outlined  ublin t would be s ould exceed a t if a new inte y identified in City strive fo perating belo M 2000 metho HCM 2000 me no Tassajara aft Report e two facilitie CCTA travel d wide model, a Contra Costa cenarios wer rvative traffic straints”.  ct Criteria y and Tri‐Va ortation Coun along Camino of traffic oper ow the inter A requiremen ps in a peak p rth for Rout S E. All study  f Camino Tas based on the rded as a sem in the Count ignificant if a acceptable le ersection is id n the Eastern or LOS D at in ow an accepta od for interse ethod es, and that re demand mod as well as tak a County, it w re developed c volumes in  alley Transp cil set maxim  Tassajara. Ac ration at inte rsections are ts include sig eriod when u tes of Regio intersections ssajara/Highla e standard se mi‐rural inter ty’s comment an intersectio evels with the dentified as e  Dublin EIR a ntersections. able threshold ection LOS ca 13 esulted in the del volumes w king into acc was decided t  using the “u the study are portation Co mum levels of  ccording to th rsections on t e currently o gnalized inter used to assess onal Significa s are on Route and Road and et forth in in  section and t ts in the Add on operating  e addition of p xceeding acce as a study inte An impact w d and the pro lculations. Th ese facilities a with those fro count the fac to use the CC unconstraine ea compared  ouncil f congestion f he CCTA requ the routes of operating. Fu rsections tha s the potentia ance in the  es of Regiona d Camino Tas the Contra C therefore hav dendum to th at an accept project traffic eptable level ersection. Th would also b oject worsens he remaining  attracting trip om the City o ct that the m CTA travel dem ed” version o  to the versio for routes of  uirements, lev f regional sign urthermore,  t are expecte al impact of n 2014 Tri‐Va al Significance ssajara/Wind Costa County  ve a more str he Proposed  table level of c. In addition, s and if such  e General Pla e significant  s the conditio intersections March ps differently  of Dublin mo majority of th mand model of the model  on that incorp regional sign vel of service nificance in th intersections ed to be affe new developm alley Transpo e.  emere Parkw General Plan ringent perfo Creekside Ce f service with , an impact w intersection w an standard r if an interse on. The City of s were also a 19, 2015 in each  odel and  e study  for this  as that  porated  ificance   E (LOS)  he study  s to be  ected by  ment.  ortation  way, the  n. These  ormance  emetery  hout the  would be  was not  requires  ection is  f Dublin  nalyzed  Tassajara Capacity A Town of The Tri‐V Regional S are:   • D m • Sy • C Intersecti Capacity  intersecti Caltrans Caltrans e highway f that the l highway f maintaine Existin Existing The lane  Condition condition                    3 Town of D a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra Danville3 Valley Council Significance i anville Boule missing segme ycamore Valle row Canyon R ons on the f Manual (HCM on of Crow C endeavors to facilities, how ead agency c facility is ope ed.  ng Conditi g Traffic V configuration ns traffic volu s.                          Danville Gener no Tassajara aft Report l has establis nclude two co vard/San Ram ent through D ey Road and  Road (south o first two of t M) Operation anyon Road a o maintain a  wever, Caltran consult with  erating at less ions Volumes an ns for each o umes are pre                     ral Plan, Chapt shed LOS sta orridors with mon Valley Bo Downtown Da Camino Tassa of Camino Tas these corrido nal Method. and Camino T target LOS a ns acknowled Caltrans to d s (worse) tha nd Lane Co of the study  sented in Fig er 4, 2013  14 andards for “ in Danville an oulevard sout anville in the c ajara (a single ssajara)  ors are subje The Town o Tassajara.  at the transit dges that this  determine th n the approp onfigurati intersections gure 3. Figure “Routes of R nd one corrid th of Sycamo center)  e corridor com ect to an LOS of Danville h tion between may not alw e appropriat priate target  ions s are presen e 4 shows lin Regional Sign dor on the edg ore Valley (a s mprised of tw S E standard as a standar n LOS “C” an ways be feasib e target LOS LOS, the exis ted in Figure nk volumes u March ificance.” Ro ge of Danville single corrido wo roads)  d using the H rd of LOS D  nd LOS “D” o ble and recom . If an existin sting MOE sh e 2 and the  under existing 19, 2015 outes of  e. These  or with a  Highway  for the  on State  mmends  ng State  ould be  Existing  g traffic  Figure 2 Existing Lane Configuration Traffic Signal Stop Sign A A CDE LEGENDJJL NA CD PA C JJ NA A C JLL N N9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd DE A DA A A CDJLL N JL KL JLL N NJL NA CE D JJ N NCDE 5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps A A CCE A CEOA BEEJL N L N JKL JLLJL N NCCCE CCE JJLL N NA A A CCE JL N NA A DJLL N 1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd 4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr A A EEA A EEA A A CDJLL N JJLLL JJLLLL N N P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 RT RT TH LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT RT TH LT TH RT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT RT RT TH TH RT TH LT LT TH LT LT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT TH RT TH RT LT TH RT TH RT TH RT RT RT RT TH TH RT TH LT RT TH RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT LT LT TH LT LT TH LT LT TH RT TH TH RT RT RT RT Traffic Signal AM(PM)258 (307)0 (0)181 (189)408 (402)15 (46)364 (516)75 (33)21 (158)71 (128) 282 (1017)193 (183)99 (184) 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd 78 (72)28 (13) 434 (438) 252 (172)74 (32)82 (214)192 (514)182 (182) 5 (1)21 (6)42 (127)88 (1)21 (18)71 (19)170 (415)2 (47)2 (3) 97 (5)58 (22) 0 (1) 264 (43)198 (314) 3 (3)2 (6)270 (425)59 (157)347 (196)274 (571)5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 681 (235)120 (79)0 (1)443 (208)53 (215)86 (191)416 (703)172 (191)665 (338) 181 (477) 33 (66)1009 (1433)553 (677)63 (551)329 (402)553 (714)117 (394)114 (192) 48 (213)230 (71)920 (466)59 (23)252 (151) 374 (479) 315 (298) 15 (34) 51 (22) 191 (147) 155 (67)779 (1288)398 (537)1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd 4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr228 (298)1013 (1021)175 (288)844 (647)866 (1104)163 (179) 544 (509) 384 (233) 538 (434) 59 (306) 147 (226)170 (99)1094 (654)16 (55)148 (428)287 (124) 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 3 (19)138 (78)1 (5)11 (9)65 (128)29 (10) 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 62 (35)501 (188)Volume Turning  Movements Figure 3 LEGEND 87 (329) 9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 29 (20)512 (360)0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 18 (88) Existing Condition Turn Movement Volumes 20 (30) 0 (1)56 (79)124 (468)P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 NO SCALE A A AAAA AAAA A A 405 205 8 26 512 99W SPEED 20 4Figure 205 This symbol has white hairline edge for placing over darker backgounds 00% 11 Howard St/Boone Av A A AAAA AAAA A A 11.0 B 0.28 LT TH RT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT - Signalized Study Intersection & Number LEGEND 00 V/CLOS*Delay** 00.0 X 0.00 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTH RT - Lane Configuration - Stop Sign - Traffic Signal 000 *A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS **Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay 126 105 217 5 84 Existing Condition Link Volumes P:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On-Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics- Signalized Intersection - Danville City Boundary - Dublin City Boundary - Contra Costa County BoundaryAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Voumes Tassajara Capacity A Interse Table 5 su and PM p Table 5 – E No  1 Sa I‐5 2 Sa Rd 3 Ta 4 Ta 5 Fa Ta 6 Ca Hig 7 El  I‐5 8 El  58 9 Fa 10 Fa Sil 11 Ca W 12 Ca Cr Source: Notes:  a. Delay b. LOS = BOLD in   Appendix Condition standards acceptabl standard  at LOS C d during the E under th at LOS C  during the standard. a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ection Peak ummarizes th eak hours.  Existing Condit Intersection  nta Rita Rd/  580 EB off‐ram nta Rita Rd/Ta d/I‐580 WB off‐ ssajara Rd/Du ssajara Rd/Gle llon Rd/Camin ssajara/Tassaj amino Tassajar ghland Rd  Charro Rd/  580 EB off‐ram Charro Rd/Fall 80 WB ramps  llon Rd/Dublin llon Rd/  vera Ranch Dr  amino Tassajar indemere Pkw amino Tassajar ow Canyon Rd : DKS Associate y is in seconds  = Level of Serv ndicates unacc x A contains t ns, nine of th s during AM  y at LOS D du during the AM during the AM e PM peak ho he Contra Co during the P e AM peak h   no Tassajara aft Report k Hour Lev he results of t tions Intersect Name  p  assajara  ‐ramp  blin Blvd  eason Dr  o  ara Rd  a/  p  lon Rd/I‐ n Blvd  a/  wy  a and    es, 2014  per vehicle an ice  ceptable LOS   the LOS analy e 12 study in and PM pea uring the PM  M peak hour. M peak hour  our. The Cam sta County G PM peak hou our operates vel of Serv the intersect tion Level of Se Control  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  nd is based on a ysis and calcu ntersections  k hours. The  peak hour bu . The Tassajar but operates ino Tassajara eneral Plan st ur. Only the  s worse than 18 vice Analy ion LOS analy ervice  AM peak ho Average  Delaya LO 55.9  10.3  35.8  27.8  16.0  65.8  4.0  6.0  11.2  5.6  21.6  24.3  average stoppe lation worksh currently ope Santa Rita R ut operates u ra Road/Dubl s unacceptab a/Highland Ro tandard durin intersection  the 2014 Tri‐ ysis (Existi ysis conducte our PM p OSb Averag Delaya E 38.1 B 12.1 D 57.8 C 36.5 D 46.4 E 24.1 A 7.5 A 8.4 B 18.3 A 4.9 C 23.5 C 39.3 ed delay. heets. Based  erate accepta Road/I‐580 EB unacceptably  in Boulevard  bly at LOS E u oad intersecti ng the AM pe of Fallon Rd ‐Valley Trans ing Condit ed for the Exi peak hour  ge  a LOSb  D  B  E  D  D  C  A  A  B  A  C  D  on the LOS r ably accordin B off‐ramp in at LOS E und  intersection  under the City ion operates  eak hour and  d/Camino Tas portation Pla March tions) isting Conditi esults under  ng to applica ntersection o der the City of operates acc y of Dublin st unacceptably operates acc ssajara/Tassa an/Action Pla 19, 2015 ons AM  Existing  ble LOS  operates  f Dublin  ceptably  tandard  y at LOS  ceptably  ajara Rd  n LOS E  Tassajara Capacity A Roadwa Table 6  condition for throu determine factors us median, a speeds as LOS analy As shown both direc Table 6 – E Tassajara R North Dub Tassajara R Ranch Dr a Tassajara R between F Parkway  Camino Ta parkway a Camino Ta Street and Camino Ta Canyon Ro Road  Notes: Fr      Trave   a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ay Peak H summarizes  s. Average tra ugh traffic at ed using free sed to calcul access point d s a percentag ysis and calcu n in Table 6, a ctions. Gener Existing Condit Roadway Segm Rd between Gl lin Ranch Dr  Rd between No and Fallon Road Rd/Camino Tas Fallon Rd and W ssajara betwee nd Lusitano St ssajara betwee Crow Canyon  ssajara betwee oad and Sycam ree flow Speed is el Time (sec) = T no Tassajara aft Report our Level the average avel time was t study inter ‐flow speeds late free flow density and n ge of free flow lation worksh all roadway s rally, speeds a tion Roadway  ment  eason Dr and  orth Dublin  d  ssajara  Windemere  en Windemere reet  en Lusitano  Rd  en Crow  ore Valley  s defined by HCM he average time of Service  travel time s calculated a rsections wit  calculated fr w speed incl number of lan w speed as d heets.   segments ope are faster dur Segment Leve Approach Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound e Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound M 2010 method e taken for a veh 19 e Analysis e and roadw as the sum of  hin each roa rom the 2010 ude posted s nes. Roadway efined in Tab erate at LOS  ring the AM p el of Service  Peak Hour d AM  PM  d AM  PM d AM  PM d AM  PM d AM  PM  d AM  PM  d AM PM  d AM  PM  d AM  PM  d AM  PM  d AM  PM  d AM  PM  ology   hicle to travel the (Existing way segment  free‐flow tra adway segm 0 Highway Ca speed limit,  y Segment LO ble 4. Appen C or better d peak hour.   r Average T e segment.  Condition level of ser avel time and  ent. Free flo pacity Manua existence an OS is determin dix B provide during AM an Travel Time (se 69.6 82.6 63.2 79.7 86.2 86.2 95.2 111.0 98.5 109.8 87.8 88.6 329.2 325.4 325.4 325.8 213.9 213.9 237.6 244.4 278.8 301.6 250.8 250.8 March ns) rvice under  average sign ow travel tim al methodolo nd type of cu ned by vehicl es roadway s nd PM peak h ec) Segme C C B C A A A B A B A A A A A A A A A A A B A A 19, 2015 existing  al delay  me was  ogy. The  urb and  e travel  segment  hours in  ent LOS  C  C  B  C A  A A  B A  B  A  A  A A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  B  A  A  Tassajara Capacity A Future 2040 La According significant Livermore CCTA Cou 2040 Se Select‐link peak‐hou Tassajara/ Tassajara  Turnberry Road for b Appendix Tassajara  the level  summariz when the However, on Tassaj southbou significant Figure 5 a traffic con                       a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra e Cumulat and Use D g to the volu t new develo e and Pleasan untywide Mod elect‐Link k analyses we r traffic cond /Tassajara Ro Road betwee y Drive. Table both scenario x E contains p Road/Camin of traffic dis zed in Table 6 e number of t  widening th jara Road/Ca nd directions t differences  and Figure 6 s nditions.  no Tassajara aft Report tive (2040 escription ume forecast opment and g nton. Growth del, which is d k Analysis ere conducte itions to dete oad. The links en Fallon Roa e 7 shows av os and peak h plots of the se o Tassajara in stribution alo 6, there is no  travel lanes o e study road amino Tassaj s during the A in travel patt show link vol 0) Conditi n s for year 20 growth in all  h in trip gene described mo d for both Sc ermine the tra s selected for  ad and Winde verage flows  hours.  elect‐link ana n the study a ng the vario significant dif on Tassajara R way from fou jara by less  AM and PM p terns under b umes for the  20 ions 040, as I‐580 of the Bay A eration was b ore in detail u cenario 1 and avel patterns the analysis  emere Parkwa along severa lysis with traf rea. The thick us routes in  fference in th Road/Camino ur lanes to si than 100 v eak hours. Th both four lane 4‐lane and 6 0 gets more  Area, traffic d based on land nder the Ana d Scenario 2 u s of vehicles u are Camino T ay, and Fallon l segments a ffic volumes  kness of the v the study ar he traffic dist o Tassajara is  ix lanes is ex vehicles per  herefore it ca es and six lane 6‐lane scenari congested in diverts to loc d use project alysis Method under the AM using various  Tassajara nort n Road betwe along Camino along various various links  rea. As show ribution patte increased fro pected to slig hour in bot an be conclud es scenario.  ios respective March n the future  cal streets in  tions included dology section M peak hour  segments of  th of Highlan een Antone W o Tassajara/Ta s roadways in graphically in n in the figu ern in the stu om four to si ghtly increase th northbou ded that there ely under cum 19, 2015 due to  Dublin,  d in the  n.  and PM  Camino  d Road,  Way and  assajara  ncluding  ndicates  res and  udy area  ix lanes.  e traffic  nd and  e are no  mulative  Tassajara Capacity A Table 7 – 2 Tassajara and North Tassajara Ranch Dr  Tassajara between  Parkway  Camino T Windeme Street  Camino T Street and Camino T Canyon R Road        a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra 2040 Select‐Lin Roadway Segm  Rd between G h Dublin Ranch  Rd between N and Fallon Roa  Rd/Camino Ta Fallon Rd and  Tassajara betwe ere parkway an Tassajara betwe d Crow Canyon Tassajara betwe Road and Sycam no Tassajara aft Report nk Analysis Vo ment  Gleason Dr  h Dr  North Dublin  ad  assajara  Windemere  een  nd Lusitano  een Lusitano  n Rd  een Crow  more Valley    lumes  Approach Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Northbound 21 Peak Hour d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  d  AM  PM  r  Scenario  Average Volume 422  75  75  272  500  150  175  300  670  320  603  495  670  200  400  475  300  150  600  200  20  30  350  40  1  e  e  Scenario Averag Volum 490  75  72  332  550  150  150  390  750  315  660  550  735  200  400  530  400  150  600  200  30  30  350  50  March o 2  ge  me  19, 2015 NO SCALE A A AAAA AAAA A A 405 205 8 26 512 99W SPEED 20 5Figure 205 This symbol has white hairline edge for placing over darker backgounds 00% 11 Howard St/Boone Av A A AAAA AAAA A A 11.0 B 0.28 LT TH RT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT - Signalized Study Intersection & Number LEGEND 00 V/CLOS*Delay** 00.0 X 0.00 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTH RT - Lane Configuration - Stop Sign - Traffic Signal 000 *A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS **Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay 126 105 217 5 84 4-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Link VolumesP:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On-Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics- Signalized Intersection - Danville City Boundary - Dublin City Boundary - Contra Costa County BoundaryAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes NO SCALE A A AAAA AAAA A A 405 205 8 26 512 99W SPEED 20 6Figure 205 This symbol has white hairline edge for placing over darker backgounds 00% 11 Howard St/Boone Av A A AAAA AAAA A A 11.0 B 0.28 LT TH RT RT TH LT RTTHLT LTTHRT - Signalized Study Intersection & Number LEGEND 00 V/CLOS*Delay** 00.0 X 0.00 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume - Volume Turn Movement RightThruLeft LTTH RT - Lane Configuration - Stop Sign - Traffic Signal 000 *A/A = Major Street LOS/Minor Street LOS **Unsignalized Delay = Highest Minor Street Approach Delay 126 105 217 5 84 6-Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Link VolumesP:\P\14\14112-001 City of Dublin On-Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics- Signalized Intersection - Danville City Boundary - Dublin City Boundary - Contra Costa County BoundaryAM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes Tassajara Capacity A Interse Conditi Table 8 c during the Table 8 – C No  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Sourc Notes a. De b. LOS BOLD During th following  condition  Sa  Ta The inters worse tha a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ection Peak ions) compares the e AM peak ho Cumulative 204 Intersecti Santa Rita Rd EB off‐ramp  Santa Rita Rd Rd and I‐580 ramp  Tassajara Rd Blvd  Tassajara Rd Gleason Dr  Fallon Rd/Ca Tassajara an Rd  Camino Tass Highland Rd  El Charro Rd  EB off‐ramp  El Charro Rd/ and I‐580 W Fallon Rd/Du Fallon Rd/Sil Dr  Camino Tass Windemere  Camino Tass Crow Canyon ce: DKS Associa s:  lay is in second S = Level of Se D indicates una he AM Peak  two interse s:  anta Rita Rd a assajara Road sections of Ta an the 2014  no Tassajara aft Report k Hour Lev e results of th our between  40 Conditions  ion Name  d and I‐580  d/Tassajara  0 WB off‐  and Dublin   and  amino  d Tassajara  ajara and  and I‐580  /Fallon Rd  B ramps  ublin Blvd  vera Ranch  ajara and  Pkwy  ajara and  n Rd  ates, 2014  ds per vehicle a rvice  cceptable LOS hour, the in ections are  and I‐580 EB o d and Gleason assajara Road Tri‐Valley Tr vel of Serv he intersectio the 4‐lane an Intersection L Control  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  and is based on    ntersection L expected to off‐ramp (und n Drive (unde d and Gleaso ransportation 24 vice Analy on LOS analy nd 6‐lane scen Level of Service W 4‐Lane Scen Average  Delaya  94.5  29.4  40.4  87.8  18.6  11.5  6.3  6.1  33.4  6.0  28.2  25.7  n average stop OS is genera o operate u der both 4‐la er both 4‐lane n Drive and S n Plan/Action ysis (Cumu ysis conducte narios.  e – AM Peak H With Optimizat nario 6‐L LOSb Aver Del F 95 C 29 D 39 F 80 B 16 B 9. A 6. A 9. C 33 A 5. C 27 C 26 pped delay. ally similar b nacceptably  ne and 6‐lane e and 6‐lane s Santa Rita Rd n Plan LOS E  ulative 204 ed for the Cu Hour  ion  Lane Scenario  rage  aya LOSb  5.8 F  9.2 C  9.5 D  0.1 F  6.9 B  .0 A  .3 A  .7 A  3.4 C  .9 A  7.4 C  6.0 C  between the  under cumu e scenarios)  scenarios)  d and I‐580 E standard un March 40 umulative Con Applicable LOS  Standard D  D  D  D  D  C  D  D  D  D  C  D      two scenari ulative 2040 B off‐ramp o nder both sce 19, 2015 nditions  e    os. The  0 traffic  operates  enarios.  Tassajara Capacity A Table 9 c during the Table 9 – C No  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Sourc Notes a. De b. LOS BOLD   During th following  condition  Ta  Ta  Fa   a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra compares the e PM peak ho Cumulative 204 Intersecti Santa Rita Rd EB off‐ramp  Santa Rita Rd Rd and I‐580 ramp  Tassajara Rd Blvd  Tassajara Rd Gleason Dr  Fallon Rd/Ca Tassajara an Rd  Camino Tass Highland Rd  El Charro Rd  EB off‐ramp  El Charro Rd/ and I‐580 W Fallon Rd/Du Fallon Rd/Sil Dr  Camino Tass Windemere  Camino Tass Crow Canyon ce: DKS Associa s:  lay is in second S = Level of Se D indicates una he PM Peak  three inter s:  assajara Road assajara Road allon Road an no Tassajara aft Report e results of th our between t 40 Conditions  ion Name  d and I‐580  d/Tassajara  0 WB off‐  and Dublin   and  amino  d Tassajara  ajara and  and I‐580  /Fallon Rd  B ramps  ublin Blvd  vera Ranch  ajara and  Pkwy  ajara and  n Rd  ates, 2014  ds per vehicle a rvice  cceptable LOS hour, the in sections are  d and Dublin  d and Gleason nd Dublin Bou he intersectio the 4‐Lane an Intersection L Control  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  Signalized  and is based on    ntersection LO expected t Boulevard (un n Drive (unde ulevard (unde 25 on LOS analy nd 6‐Lane sce Level of Service W 4‐Lane Scen Average  Delaya  39.2  12.9  91.2  65.4  16.8  11.6  11.4  7.4  132.7  6.1  20.9  44.2  n average stop OS is genera o operate u nder both 4‐l er both 4‐lane er both 4‐lane ysis conducte enarios.  e – PM Peak H With Optimizat nario 6‐L LOSb Aver Del D 47 B 17 F 133 E 87 B 17 B 12 B 11 A 4. F 174 A 6. C 20 D 42 pped delay. ally similar b unacceptably  ane and 6‐lan e and 6‐lane s e and 6‐lane s ed for the Cu Hour  ion  Lane Scenario  rage  aya LOSb  7.7 C  7.8 B  3.5 F  7.9 F  7.1 B  2.3 B  1.3 B  .4 A  4.9 F  .1 A  0.6 C  2.5 D  between the  under cum ne scenarios) scenarios)  scenarios)  March umulative Con Applicable LOS  Standard D  D  D  D  D  C  D  D  D  D  C  D      two scenari ulative 2040   19, 2015 nditions  e    os. The  0 traffic  Tassajara Capacity A The inters Road and standard  Figure 5 a under cum on the LO at LOS E o   a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra sections of T  Dublin Boule under both s and Figure 6 s mulative 2040 OS results und or better duri no Tassajara aft Report assajara Road evard operate cenarios.  show the fore 0 traffic cond der Cumulativ ng both the A d and Dublin e worse than ecasted traffi ditions. Appen ve Conditions AM and PM p 26  Boulevard, T  the 2014 Tri ic volumes fo ndix A provid s, nine of the eak hours for Tassajara Roa i‐Valley Trans or the 4‐lane  des LOS analy e twelve stud r both the 4‐L ad and Gleas sportation Pla and 6‐lane sc ysis and calcu dy intersectio Lane and 6‐La March on Drive, and an/Action Pla cenarios resp ulation sheets ns currently o ane scenarios 19, 2015 d Fallon  an LOS E  pectively  s. Based  operate  s.   RT RT TH LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT RT TH LT TH RT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT RT RT TH TH RT TH LT LT TH LT LT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT TH RT TH RT LT TH RT TH RT TH RT RT RT RT TH TH RT TH LT RT TH RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT LT LT TH LT LT TH LT LT TH RT TH TH RT RT RT RT Traffic Signal AM(PM) LEGEND Figure 7 Volume Turning  Movements 4‐Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes 353 (1264)153 (120)609 (685)213 (522)36 (94) 4 (9)24 (103)87 (189) 568 (2486)56 (0)241 (1715)267 (0)44 (61)149 (0) 102 (72) 400 (315) 49 (79)595 (595)570 (366)221 (581)762 (1099)298 (109) 884 (0)82 (28) 954 (0)599 (472)390 (47)769 (147)114 (166)509 (547)47 (180)9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd 73 (694)1028 (198)7 (44)659 (481)578 (1754)74 (34)97 (182)206 (798)232 (674)12 (59)277 (1663)636 (949)455 (854)429 (264) 1 (1)144 (58)468 (553)92 (2)3 (5) 266 (10)292 (380) 0 (0) 80 (103)50 (27) 2 (2)17 (102)747 (602)1692 (739)1336 (342)640 (1008)5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 991 (405)552 (376)0 (0)849 (234)50 (235)348 (150) 86 (514) 110 (304)124 (104)892 (1542)198 (275)13 (39) 4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr 838 (167)1101 (1087)171 (143)318 (89) 652 (67) 223 (509) 159 (670) 189 (1893)440 (463)1033 (1039)244 (899)844 (253) 72 (76) 658 (259) 3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd 325 (242)1332 (985)48 (267)1483 (2237)611 (677)1318 (346) 536 (373) 2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 1950 (1147)584 (923)992 (590) 705 (256) 183 (325)854 (946)414 (963)208 (453) 420 (409) 1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 557 (1207)1134 (94)163 (22)P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 RT RT TH LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT RT TH LT TH RT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT TH RT RT RT RT TH TH RT TH LT LT TH LT LT RT TH RT TH LT LT LT TH RT TH RT LT TH RT TH RT TH RT RT RT RT TH TH RT TH LT RT TH RT TH RT TH LT LT LT LT TH RT LT LT TH LT LT TH LT LT TH RT TH TH RT RT RT RT Traffic Signal AM(PM) LEGEND Figure 8 Volume Turning  Movements 6‐Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes 347 (1271)108 (132)590 (657)239 (515)44 (20) 4 (9)16 (102)73 (185) 633 (2473)67 (0)259 (1551)263 (0)45 (57)199 (0) 101 (73) 401 (309) 35 (84)651 (549)591 (371)238 (634)782 (1133)384 (104) 826 (0)126 (25) 984 (0)671 (477)238 (45)765 (152)89 (174)457 (540)59 (170)9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd 10. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr 11. Camino Tassajara & Windemere Pkwy 12. Camino Tassajara & Crow Canyon Rd 72 (781)1007 (153)6 (45)606 (484)578 (1663)74 (34)64 (163)208 (789)254 (727)3 (59)257 (1646)636 (931)411 (940)427 (252) 1 (1)128 (40)550 (525)92 (2)3 (5) 135 (9)222 (366) 0 (0) 183 (103)75 (0) 2 (2)11 (95)734 (605)1720 (745)1292 (338)735 (1037)5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon Rd 6. Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd 7. El Charro Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 8. El Charro Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 994 (383)531 (398)0 (0)830 (237)44 (238)423 (191) 83 (391) 111 (232)120 (105)902 (2068)211 (370)16 (24) 4. Tassajara Rd & Gleason Dr 827 (154)1416 (1067)187 (175)312 (140) 609 (80) 174 (458) 160 (992) 232 (1844)372 (348)1011 (1477)291 (841)788 (315) 86 (155) 680 (281) 3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd 394 (211)1462 (988)82 (289)1486 (2351)588 (677)1335 (337) 494 (515) 2. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 WB ramps 2008 (1147)550 (930)953 (611) 727 (285) 194 (330)832 (1007)415 (936)192 (438) 416 (426) 1. Santa Rita Rd & I‐580 EB ramps 589 (1213)1078 (86)172 (20)P:\P\14\14112‐001 City of Dublin On‐Call Tassajara Rd\06 Graphics\Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2 Tassajara Capacity A Roadwa Table 10  Average t through t As shown during AM between  in both d time is lo between t a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra ay Peak H compares the travel time w raffic at study  in Table 10,  M and PM pe Gleason Drive irections. Du nger in almos the scenarios no Tassajara aft Report our Level e estimated a was calculate y intersection all roadway s eak hours in  e and North D ring the PM p st all cases un s.  of Service average trave ed as the su ns within each segments nor both directio Dublin Ranch  peak hour it  nder the 4‐La 29 e Analysis el times and s m of free flo h roadway se rth of North D ons. Under bo Drive operat operates at L ane Scenario; (Cumulat segment LOS  ow travel tim egment.   Dublin Ranch oth scenarios tes at LOS C o LOS E in the  ; however the tive 2040 C under each o me and avera h Drive operat s, the segmen or LOS D durin northbound  ere is very lit March Conditions of the two sce age signal de te at LOS C o nt of Tassaja ng the AM pe direction. Th tle difference 19, 2015 s) enarios.  elay for  r better  ra Road  eak hour  e travel  e in LOS  Tassajara Capacity A Table 10 – Road Segm Tassajara Rd  Gleason Dr a Dublin Ranch Tassajara Rd  North Dublin and Fallon Ro Tassajara Rd/ Tassajara bet Rd and Wind Parkway  Camino Tass between Win parkway and Street  Camino Tass between Lus and Crow Ca Camino Tass between Cro Road and Syc Valley Road  Notes:      a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra – Cumulative 20 dway  ment A between  nd North  h Dr  between  n Ranch Dr  oad  /Camino  tween Fallon  demere  ajara  ndemere  d Lusitano  ajara  sitano Street  nyon Rd  ajara  ow Canyon  camore  Free flow Spee Travel Time (se no Tassajara aft Report 040 Condition Approach Pe Ho SB  A P NB  A P SB  A P NB  A P SB  A P NB  A P SB  A P NB  A P SB  A P NB  A P SB  A P NB  A P d is defined by H ec) = The average s Roadway Se eak  our  4‐La Avera Travel T (sec AM 79.7 M 70.0 AM 89.1 M 137. AM 86.0 M 86.0 AM 93.4 M 98.3 AM 103. M 103. AM 89.2 M 90.4 AM 352. M 330. AM 326. M 327. AM 213. M 213. AM 237. M 240. AM 280. M 307. AM 250. M 250. HCM 2010 meth e time taken for 30 gment Level o ane Scenario  age  Time  c)  Segme LOS 7 C 0 C 1 D 3 E 0 A 0 A 4 A 3 A 1 B  8 B  2 A 4 A 3 A 5 A 7 A 6 A 9 A 9 A 8 A 7 A 6 A 1 B  8 A 8 A odology   a vehicle to trav of Service  6‐Lan ent  S  Averag Travel Ti (sec) 78.4 61.6 86.2 135.1 85.9 85.9 93.2 98.4 101.9 104.1 88.9 90.4 346.0 329.9 324.6 326.9 213.5 213.5 237.0 241.5 281.1 305.4 250.3 250.3 vel the segment ne Scenario  ge  ime Segmen LOS  C  B  C   E  A  A  A  A  9 B   B  A  A  0 A  9 A  6 A  9 A  5 A  5 A  0 A  5 A   A  4 B   A   A  t.  March Diff nt Average  Travel Tim (sec)  ‐1.3  ‐8.4  ‐2.9  ‐2.2  ‐0.1  ‐0.1  ‐0.2  0.1  ‐1.2  0.3  ‐0.3  0  ‐6.3  ‐0.6  ‐2.1  ‐0.7  ‐0.4  ‐0.4  ‐0.8  0.8  0.5  ‐1.7  ‐0.5  ‐0.5  19, 2015 ference e Segment  LOS  No change CB  DC  No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change No change Tassajara Capacity A Finding The CCTA the adequ generated Livermore with the m City of D demand m roadway  volumes t The level  unincorpo The exist Road/Cam similar int under fut difference The result similar le However, scenario p delay per time, the  and five m It can the scenarios  any signif     a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra gs and Co A Countywide uate number  d from propo e, San Ramon model output ublin Model. models, the C segments ar than the ACTC of service w orated Contra ting CCTA m mino Tassajar tersection an ture traffic c es in travel pa ts of the Cum evel of servic  for intersec provides less  r vehicle duri travel time sa minutes.   erefore be co that widenin icant benefit  no Tassajara aft Report onclusion e Travel Dema of lanes alon osed future d n, Danville a t with forecas  While there CCTA Travel  re in Contra  C and Dublin  was conducted a Costa Count model shows ra and this st nd roadway s conditions. T atterns under mulative Cond ce with sligh ctions that a than 10 seco ng the PM p avings is gene oncluded from ng Tassajara R to motorists.   s and Model w ng Tassajara R development nd unincorpo sts from the A e is consisten Demand Mod Costa Coun travel deman d for key inte ty to assess a s variable la tudy determi segment LOS  The select‐lin r both four la ditions analys ht improveme re expected  onds of saving peak hour. Ad erally two sec m the similar Road/Camino  .   31 was executed  Road/Camino s in the vicin orated Contr Alameda CTC ncy in travel  del was used nty and the  nd models.     ersections in  ny possible tr nes (i.e. 2‐3 ned that eith results along k analysis re nes and six la ses for the fo ents at som to experien gs per vehicle dditionally, w conds or less ity in results  Tassajara fro for future 20  Tassajara to  nity of the C ra Costa Cou C’s Countywid distribution  d for the stud model conse  Dublin, Live raffic impacts 3 lanes in e her two or th g Tassajara R esults indicat anes scenario our‐lane and s e intersectio ce intolerab e during the A while the six‐l for segments of the analy om four to six 040 traffic vo accommoda amino Tassaj nty. The resu de Travel Dem pattern amo dy because m ervatively for rmore, San R s due to traffi each directio hree lanes pe Road and Cam te that there .    six‐lane scena ons under th le delays at  AM peak hou ane scenario s with travel t ysis for the fo x lanes is not  March olumes to det te traffic that jara Road in  ults were co mand Model  ong the three majority of th recast higher Ramon, Danv ic diversions. on) along Ta er direction p mino Tassaja e are no sig arios general he six‐lane sc LOS F, the  r, and an inc o shows lowe times betwee our‐lane and  expected to r 19, 2015 termine  t will be  Dublin,  mpared  and the  e travel  he study  r traffic  ville and  assajara  produce  ra Road  gnificant  ly show  cenario.  six‐lane  rease in  er travel  en three  six‐lane  result in  Tassajara Capacity A Study P DKS Perso Bill Loudo David Ma Joshua Pil Adonis Ga Garnet W Deserae M Others  Obaid Kha Gary Huis Angela Vi Nancy We John Cunn   Reference 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.     a Road/Camin Analysis –Dra Participan onnel  on, P.E.  hama, P.E.  lachowski, Ph arefalakis, E.I Wing, E.I.T.  Mallori   an, P.E.  sing   llar, P.E.  eir   ningham  es  . Mollar . Green  . Tri‐Val . Compr (Contr . Highw no Tassajara aft Report nts    hD, P.E.   .T.                       r Ranch Traffi Traffic ADSEI lley Transpor rehensive Agr ra Costa Coun way Capacity M Principa Project  Transpo Transpo Associat Word P City of D City of D Contra C Contra C Contra C ic Impact Stud IR, Kittleson A tation Plan/A reement to S nty Case No. C Manual, 2000 32 al‐In‐Charge Manager  ortation Engin ortation Plann te Transporta rocessing and Dublin  Dublin  Costa County Costa County Costa County dy Final Repo Associates 10/ Action Plan, D Settle Litigati C‐02‐02250; S 0 and 2010 Tr neer  ner  ation Enginee d Graphic Des y Public Work y Public Work y Public Work ort, Kimley‐Ho 0/2013  DKS, 2014  ion, Town of  San Joaquin C ransportation er  signer  ks Departmen ks Departmen ks Departmen orn & Associa f Danville v. C County Case N n Research Bo March nt  nt  nt  ates, 09/10/20 Contra Costa No. CV‐020073 oard  19, 2015 012  a, et al.,  3)      Appendix A Intersection Level of Service Analysis APPENDIX A1 Existing Condition HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)538 147 665 163 0 374 0 779 398 175 1013 228 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)578 158 715 175 0 402 0 838 428 188 1089 245 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 19 0 0 316 0 0 134 Lane Group Flow (vph) 578 158 631 175 0 383 0 838 112 188 1089 111 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 30.5 30.5 9.9 38.4 26.7 26.7 15.4 46.1 46.1 Effective Green, g (s) 21.9 30.5 30.5 9.9 33.9 26.7 26.7 15.4 46.1 46.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 739 558 474 334 928 1334 415 268 1603 717 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.16 0.11 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.40 0.07 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.28 1.33 0.52 0.41 0.63 0.27 0.70 0.68 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 37.7 27.3 35.6 43.7 26.3 33.2 29.8 41.0 22.0 16.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 0.1 163.0 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.4 6.6 1.2 0.1 Delay (s)42.7 27.4 198.6 44.4 26.4 34.1 30.2 47.6 23.2 16.5 Level of Service D C F D C CCDCB Approach Delay (s)117.9 31.8 32.8 25.1 Approach LOS F C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 55.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 101.8 Sum of lost time (s)16.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 544 0 315 0 1009 553 0 866 844 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 567 0 328 0 1051 576 0 902 917 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001250025600407 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 567 0 203 0 1051 320 0 902 510 Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)15.1 15.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 Effective Green, g (s)15.1 15.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)871 707 1969 881 2829 1550 v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 c0.30 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 0.20 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.29 0.53 0.36 0.32 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 17.9 8.3 7.3 7.1 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 Delay (s)21.2 18.0 8.6 7.6 7.2 7.3 Level of Service C B A A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 20.0 8.3 7.2 Approach LOS ABAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.5 Sum of lost time (s)11.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)59 63 181 384 191 15 329 553 117 16 1094 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 2787 4990 3502 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 2787 4990 3502 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)61 65 187 396 197 15 339 570 121 16 1128 175 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 03000350053 Lane Group Flow (vph) 61 65 156 396 209 0 339 570 86 16 1128 122 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 32.4 17.1 17.1 16.4 88.5 88.5 5.9 78.0 78.0 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 32.4 17.1 17.1 16.4 88.5 88.5 5.9 78.0 78.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 367 379 604 571 401 547 2095 937 135 3343 1454 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.02 0.03 c0.08 c0.06 c0.07 0.16 0.00 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.05 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.69 0.52 0.62 0.27 0.09 0.12 0.34 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 60.7 60.7 48.6 63.7 62.4 63.6 14.8 13.2 69.3 20.8 17.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.9 1.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 Delay (s)60.8 60.9 48.7 66.6 63.6 65.0 15.2 13.4 69.4 21.0 18.0 Level of Service E E D E E EBBECB Approach Delay (s)53.6 65.6 31.4 21.2 Approach LOS D E C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.5 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)48 114 33 252 155 51 86 416 172 59 920 230 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)58 137 40 304 187 61 104 501 207 71 1108 277 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0800011600115 Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 137 6 304 240 0 104 501 91 71 1108 162 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 15.2 15.2 13.6 23.3 8.0 43.6 43.6 7.7 43.3 43.3 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 15.2 15.2 13.6 23.3 8.0 43.6 43.6 7.7 43.3 43.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 190 285 242 470 421 276 1552 694 137 1542 690 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.07 c0.09 c0.13 0.03 0.14 c0.04 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.06 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.48 0.03 0.65 0.57 0.38 0.32 0.13 0.52 0.72 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 45.1 38.5 35.8 40.6 33.6 43.3 18.2 16.6 44.1 23.0 17.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 2.2 0.1 2.7 2.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.5 1.7 0.2 Delay (s)45.8 40.7 35.9 43.3 36.1 44.0 18.4 16.7 46.5 24.8 17.9 Level of Service DDDDD DBBDCB Approach Delay (s)41.1 40.1 21.3 24.5 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.4 Sum of lost time (s)14.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)192 5 21 2 3 0 21 42 88 0 120 681 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1863 1583 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1863 1583 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)206 5 23 2 3 0 23 45 95 0 129 732 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 000005400486 Lane Group Flow (vph) 206 572302345410129246 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 16.8 16.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 24.0 24.0 18.5 18.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 16.8 16.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 24.0 24.0 18.5 18.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.44 0.44 0.34 0.34 Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 544 569 484 32 30 29 813 691 627 532 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.00 0.00 c0.00 c0.01 0.02 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.03 c0.16 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.79 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 14.9 13.3 13.3 26.5 26.7 27.0 9.0 9.0 13.0 14.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.0 79.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 Delay (s)15.5 13.3 13.3 27.7 28.6 106.5 9.0 9.0 13.2 15.2 Level of Service B B B C C F A A B B Approach Delay (s)15.3 28.2 22.7 14.9 Approach LOS B C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 55.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)97 264 170 2 53 443 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1657 1860 1770 1863 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1657 1860 1770 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)102 278 179 2 56 466 RTOR Reduction (vph) 65 00000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 315 0 181 0 56 466 Turn Type NA NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 22.0 92.2 7.5 103.7 Effective Green, g (s) 22.0 92.2 7.5 103.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.68 0.06 0.76 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 1264 98 1424 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.10 c0.03 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.17 0.14 0.57 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 56.8 7.7 62.5 5.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 109.9 0.2 4.9 0.6 Delay (s)166.7 8.0 67.5 5.6 Level of Service F A E A Approach Delay (s) 166.7 8.0 12.3 Approach LOS F A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 65.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 135.7 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)182 0 71 00007521059270 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3378 1441 3037 1441 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3378 1441 3037 1441 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)202 0 79 00008323066300 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 61 0000100940 Lane Group Flow (vph) 202 0 18 000084210122150 Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 4.4 4.4 7.4 19.8 7.4 19.8 Effective Green, g (s) 4.4 4.4 7.4 19.8 7.4 19.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.37 1.00 0.37 1.00 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 763 619 1262 1441 1135 1441 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm c0.06 0.01 0.01 c0.10 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 6.4 6.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delay (s)6.4 6.0 4.0 0.0 4.1 0.1 Level of Service A A A A A A Approach Delay (s)6.3 0.0 3.2 2.5 Approach LOS AAAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 19.8 Sum of lost time (s)4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 58 2 198 0 181 74 0 274 347 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1690 2787 1759 1504 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1690 2787 1759 1504 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 64 2 220 0 201 82 0 304 386 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000013301000184 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 33 33 87 0 208 74 0 304 202 Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 18.2 11.8 37.0 19.4 19.4 Effective Green, g (s)10.1 10.1 14.7 11.8 37.0 19.4 19.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.40 0.32 1.00 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)459 461 1107 561 1504 1856 830 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 c0.03 0.05 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.37 0.05 0.16 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 10.0 6.9 9.7 0.0 4.6 4.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s)10.0 10.0 6.9 9.9 0.1 4.6 4.9 Level of Service A A A A A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 7.7 7.3 4.7 Approach LOS AAAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)18 0 87 0 0 0 56 258 0 0 512 29 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 1770 3539 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 1770 3539 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)19 0 92 0 0 0 59 272 0 0 539 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 75 0000000011 Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 0 17 0 0 0 59 272 0 0 539 20 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.7 14.4 5.7 56.8 45.8 52.5 Effective Green, g (s) 6.7 14.4 5.7 56.8 45.8 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.71 0.57 0.66 Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 148 501 126 2510 2024 1142 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.08 c0.15 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.03 0.47 0.11 0.27 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 34.0 27.1 35.7 3.7 8.7 4.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s)34.1 27.1 36.7 3.8 9.0 4.8 Level of Service C C D A A A Approach Delay (s)28.3 0.0 9.6 8.8 Approach LOS C A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.1 Sum of lost time (s)14.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1 29 11 65 138 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1616 1770 1863 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1616 1770 1863 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Adj. Flow (vph)1 39 15 88 186 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 38 00002 Lane Group Flow (vph) 2 0 15 88 186 2 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.0 1.1 28.3 23.2 23.2 Effective Green, g (s) 1.0 1.1 28.3 23.2 23.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.03 0.73 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)42 50 1366 1120 951 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 0.05 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.30 0.06 0.17 0.00 Uniform Delay, d1 18.3 18.4 1.4 3.4 3.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)18.5 21.7 1.5 3.6 3.1 Level of Service B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 18.5 4.4 3.5 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 38.6 Sum of lost time (s)13.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)20 287 82 148 501 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 1863 3481 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 1863 3481 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)22 312 89 161 545 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 270 0020 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 42 89 161 610 0 Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 17.4 7.7 104.1 92.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 17.4 7.7 104.1 92.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.14 0.06 0.81 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)55 379 207 1518 2517 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.02 c0.03 0.09 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.40 0.11 0.43 0.11 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 60.7 48.4 57.9 2.4 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 Delay (s)62.5 48.5 58.5 2.5 6.2 Level of Service E D E A A Approach Delay (s) 49.4 22.5 6.2 Approach LOS D C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 21.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 127.8 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015 Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)71 282 99 252 434 28 193 364 124 15 408 78 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3507 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3507 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)77 307 108 274 472 30 210 396 135 16 443 85 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 87 03001760051 Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 307 21 274 499 0 210 409 45 16 443 34 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.4 14.6 14.6 12.2 21.4 10.2 28.7 28.7 1.9 20.4 20.4 Effective Green, g (s) 5.4 14.6 14.6 12.2 21.4 10.2 28.7 28.7 1.9 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.28 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.02 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 676 303 797 982 458 1267 541 85 945 423 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.09 0.05 c0.14 c0.06 0.12 0.00 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.45 0.07 0.34 0.51 0.46 0.32 0.08 0.19 0.47 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 33.7 27.4 25.3 28.5 23.1 30.6 16.9 15.4 36.5 23.5 21.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 Delay (s)34.0 28.0 25.5 28.6 23.7 30.8 17.1 15.5 36.9 24.0 21.1 Level of Service CCCCC CBBDCC Approach Delay (s)28.4 25.4 20.7 23.9 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.4 Sum of lost time (s)20.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)434 226 338 179 0 479 0 1288 537 288 1021 298 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 5085 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)452 235 352 186 0 499 0 1342 559 300 1064 310 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 89 0 0 15 0 0 326 0 0 143 Lane Group Flow (vph) 452 235 263 186 0 484 0 1342 233 300 1064 167 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 28.1 28.1 11.8 47.5 37.1 37.1 23.1 64.2 64.2 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 28.1 28.1 11.8 43.0 37.1 37.1 23.1 64.2 64.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 575 438 373 339 1004 1580 492 342 1903 851 v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.13 0.05 0.17 c0.26 c0.17 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.15 0.11 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.54 0.71 0.55 0.48 0.85 0.47 0.88 0.56 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 47.6 40.0 41.9 51.3 29.6 38.5 33.3 46.8 18.2 14.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 7.0 1.3 6.0 1.8 0.4 5.9 3.2 21.4 1.2 0.5 Delay (s)54.6 41.2 47.8 53.1 29.9 44.4 36.5 68.2 19.4 14.8 Level of Service DDDD C DDEBB Approach Delay (s)49.3 36.2 42.1 27.3 Approach LOS DDDC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 119.4 Sum of lost time (s)14.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WEB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 509 0 298 0 1433 677 0 1104 647 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.88 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3539 1583 5085 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 530 0 310 0 1493 705 0 1150 703 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000430026600266 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 530 0 267 0 1493 439 0 1150 437 Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)17.3 17.3 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 Effective Green, g (s)17.3 17.3 47.1 47.1 47.1 47.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)785 637 2202 985 3164 1734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.42 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.28 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.42 0.68 0.45 0.36 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 26.6 24.9 9.3 7.5 7.0 6.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.4 1.7 1.5 0.3 0.3 Delay (s)28.9 25.4 11.0 8.9 7.3 6.8 Level of Service C C B A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 27.6 10.4 7.1 Approach LOS A C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.7 Sum of lost time (s)11.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)306 551 477 233 147 34 402 714 394 55 654 99 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.86 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 2787 4990 3440 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 2787 4990 3440 4990 3539 1583 3433 6408 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)319 574 497 243 153 35 419 744 410 57 681 103 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 060001620080 Lane Group Flow (vph) 319 574 426 243 182 0 419 744 248 57 681 23 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.5 81.5 102.7 16.5 75.5 21.2 47.0 47.0 15.1 40.9 40.9 Effective Green, g (s) 22.5 81.5 102.7 16.5 75.5 21.2 47.0 47.0 15.1 40.9 40.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.45 0.56 0.09 0.41 0.12 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.22 0.22 Clearance Time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 424 1584 1572 452 1426 581 913 409 285 1439 626 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.16 0.03 0.05 0.05 c0.08 c0.21 0.02 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.16 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.75 0.36 0.27 0.54 0.13 0.72 0.81 0.61 0.20 0.47 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 77.1 33.2 20.4 79.2 32.9 77.6 63.5 59.4 77.9 61.3 55.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.2 3.7 5.7 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.0 Delay (s)83.7 33.8 20.5 79.8 33.1 81.3 69.1 61.9 78.0 61.5 55.2 Level of Service F C C E C F EEEEE Approach Delay (s)40.5 59.4 70.5 61.9 Approach LOS D E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 57.8 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 182.1 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.1% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)213 192 66 151 67 22 191 703 191 23 466 71 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 1794 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow (vph)234 211 73 166 74 24 210 773 210 25 512 78 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 060001440059 Lane Group Flow (vph) 234 211 27 166 92 0 210 773 66 25 512 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.0 40.7 40.7 10.9 38.6 12.3 34.8 34.8 4.5 27.0 27.0 Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 40.7 40.7 10.9 38.6 12.3 34.8 34.8 4.5 27.0 27.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.35 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 405 688 585 340 628 383 1118 500 72 867 388 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 c0.11 0.05 0.05 c0.06 c0.22 0.01 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.31 0.05 0.49 0.15 0.55 0.69 0.13 0.35 0.59 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 24.7 22.3 47.0 24.5 46.3 33.0 26.9 51.4 36.7 31.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.5 1.6 1.9 0.1 2.9 1.1 0.1 Delay (s)48.0 25.9 22.4 48.1 25.0 47.9 34.9 27.0 54.3 37.8 31.8 Level of Service DCCDC DCCDDC Approach Delay (s)35.4 39.5 35.8 37.7 Approach LOS DDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.2 Sum of lost time (s)14.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)514 1 18 33161271179235 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)559 1 20 33171381186255 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 00100100146 Lane Group Flow (vph) 559 1633071380186109 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 47.5 44.5 44.5 15.0 12.0 12.0 1.8 59.6 59.6 1.8 59.5 59.5 Effective Green, g (s) 47.5 44.5 44.5 15.0 12.0 12.0 1.8 59.6 59.6 1.8 59.5 59.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 607 598 508 192 161 137 23 801 681 23 800 680 v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.00 0.00 c0.00 c0.00 c0.07 0.00 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.92 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.30 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 43.7 32.0 32.1 55.2 57.9 57.8 67.8 24.3 22.5 67.5 23.7 24.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 Delay (s)65.3 32.0 32.1 55.4 58.1 57.8 70.5 24.8 22.5 67.8 23.9 24.8 Level of Service E C C EEEECCECC Approach Delay (s)64.1 56.9 27.0 24.7 Approach LOS E E C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 138.6 Sum of lost time (s)13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5 43 415 47 215 208 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1629 1837 1770 1863 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1629 1837 1770 1863 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)5 44 428 48 222 214 RTOR Reduction (vph) 42 02000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 7 0 474 0 222 214 Turn Type NA NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 4.7 92.3 19.8 116.1 Effective Green, g (s) 4.7 92.3 19.8 116.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.71 0.15 0.89 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)59 1296 268 1654 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.26 c0.13 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.11 0.37 0.83 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 61.0 7.6 53.9 0.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.8 17.8 0.2 Delay (s)61.3 8.4 71.7 1.1 Level of Service E A E A Approach Delay (s) 61.3 8.4 37.0 Approach LOS E A D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 24.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.43 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.8 Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)182 0 19 0000331580157425 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 3032 1441 3098 1441 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 3032 1441 3098 1441 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)198 0 21 0000361720171462 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 0000212105656 Lane Group Flow (vph) 198 030000101650346175 Turn Type Prot custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.1 8.1 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 8.1 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 421 342 2293 1090 2343 1090 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.03 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 c0.12 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 27.0 25.5 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 Delay (s)27.3 25.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 Level of Service C C A A A A Approach Delay (s)27.1 0.0 2.1 2.4 Approach LOS C A A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.20 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.1 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 22 6 314 0 189 32 0 571 196 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1718 2787 1766 1504 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1718 2787 1766 1504 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 23 6 334 0 201 34 0 607 209 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000026500110052 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 14 15 69 0 204 20 0 607 157 Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 1 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.0 10.0 18.0 45.0 45.0 52.5 52.5 Effective Green, g (s)10.0 10.0 14.5 45.0 45.0 52.5 52.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.64 0.64 0.75 0.75 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)240 245 577 1135 967 2654 1187 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01 c0.02 0.01 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.02 0.23 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 25.9 22.6 5.0 4.5 2.6 2.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)26.0 26.0 22.6 5.4 4.6 2.8 2.7 Level of Service C C C A A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 22.9 5.3 2.8 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)88 1 329 1 0 0 79 307 0 0 360 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 1863 2787 1770 1770 3539 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 1863 2787 1770 1770 3539 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)91 1 339 1 0 0 81 316 0 0 371 21 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 286 000000007 Lane Group Flow (vph) 91 1 53 1 0 0 81 316 0 0 371 14 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.7 12.8 12.8 0.8 6.7 54.5 42.5 53.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 12.8 12.8 0.8 6.7 54.5 42.5 53.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.08 0.66 0.52 0.65 Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 230 290 433 17 144 2344 1828 1125 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.00 0.00 c0.05 0.09 c0.10 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm c0.02 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.56 0.13 0.20 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 29.4 29.9 40.4 36.4 5.2 10.8 5.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 3.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 Delay (s)33.2 29.4 30.1 40.9 39.4 5.3 11.0 5.2 Level of Service CCCD DA BA Approach Delay (s)30.8 40.9 12.2 10.7 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.3 Sum of lost time (s)14.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)5 10 9 128 78 19 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1671 1770 1863 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1671 1770 1863 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Adj. Flow (vph)6 11 10 147 90 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 11 00005 Lane Group Flow (vph) 6 0 10 147 90 17 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 1.1 1.3 64.8 59.5 59.5 Effective Green, g (s) 1.1 1.3 64.8 59.5 59.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.02 0.86 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)24 31 1605 1474 1253 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.01 c0.08 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.32 0.09 0.06 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 36.6 36.5 0.8 1.7 1.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 6.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)38.7 42.5 0.9 1.8 1.7 Level of Service D D A A A Approach Delay (s) 38.7 3.5 1.8 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)30 124 214 428 188 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.98 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 1863 3456 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 1863 3456 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Adj. Flow (vph)32 132 228 455 200 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 110 0040 Lane Group Flow (vph) 32 22 228 455 233 0 Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 4.7 22.5 13.3 109.8 92.5 Effective Green, g (s) 4.7 22.5 13.3 109.8 92.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.10 0.82 0.69 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)62 469 342 1530 2391 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.01 c0.07 c0.24 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.52 0.05 0.67 0.30 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 63.4 46.6 58.1 2.8 6.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.0 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.1 Delay (s)66.4 46.6 61.8 3.3 6.9 Level of Service E D E A A Approach Delay (s) 50.5 22.9 6.9 Approach LOS D C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 23.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 133.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015 Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)128 1017 184 172 438 13 183 516 468 46 402 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3524 3433 3268 1441 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3524 3433 3268 1441 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)139 1105 200 187 476 14 199 561 509 50 437 78 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 75 0100152090053 Lane Group Flow (vph) 139 1105 125 187 489 0 199 724 122 50 437 25 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 39.0 39.0 9.8 38.7 12.0 43.0 43.0 5.9 36.9 36.9 Effective Green, g (s) 10.1 39.0 39.0 9.8 38.7 12.0 43.0 43.0 5.9 36.9 36.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 297 1183 529 419 1169 353 1204 531 174 1119 501 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.31 0.04 c0.14 c0.06 c0.22 0.01 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.08 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.93 0.24 0.45 0.42 0.56 0.60 0.23 0.29 0.39 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 50.7 37.6 28.1 50.9 30.3 49.9 29.9 25.4 53.4 31.1 27.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 13.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 2.1 2.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.2 Delay (s)51.9 50.8 28.3 51.6 30.5 51.9 32.1 26.4 54.3 32.2 27.9 Level of Service DDCDC DCCDCC Approach Delay (s)47.8 36.3 33.7 33.5 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 116.7 Sum of lost time (s)9.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX A2 Cumulative Conditions 4-Lane Scenario HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)705 183 992 208 0 420 0 854 414 163 1134 557 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)758 197 1067 224 0 452 0 918 445 175 1219 599 RTOR Reduction (vph)00700320031800336 Lane Group Flow (vph) 758 197 1060 224 0 420 0 918 127 175 1219 263 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.4 47.6 47.6 5.5 31.0 31.3 31.3 6.3 41.6 41.6 Effective Green, g (s) 28.4 47.6 47.6 5.5 31.0 31.3 31.3 6.3 41.6 41.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.43 0.43 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 886 806 685 172 785 1007 793 101 1338 599 v/s Ratio Prot 0.22 0.11 c0.07 0.15 0.26 c0.10 c0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.67 0.05 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.24 1.55 1.30 0.54 0.91 0.16 1.73 0.91 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 38.8 19.8 31.2 52.2 33.4 38.0 29.5 51.9 32.4 25.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74 0.61 0.16 Incremental Delay, d2 7.8 0.1 253.7 171.8 0.4 13.7 0.4 349.2 5.9 1.2 Delay (s)46.7 19.9 284.9 224.0 33.8 51.7 29.9 387.7 25.7 5.3 Level of Service D B F F C D C F C A Approach Delay (s)169.8 96.8 44.6 51.4 Approach LOS F F D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 94.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)19.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 111.0% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 1318 0 536 0 1483 611 0 584 1950 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4863 4348 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4863 4348 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 1373 0 558 0 1545 636 0 608 2120 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001206600282559 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 1373 0 546 0 2115 0 0 1386 501 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s)46.7 46.7 52.0 52.0 52.0 Effective Green, g (s)46.7 46.7 52.0 52.0 52.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1457 1183 2299 2055 644 v/s Ratio Prot c0.40 c0.43 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.46 0.92 1.07dr 0.78 Uniform Delay, d1 30.4 22.7 27.1 22.4 24.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.2 0.1 5.1 1.8 9.0 Delay (s)42.6 22.8 24.9 24.2 33.2 Level of Service D C C C C Approach Delay (s)0.0 36.9 24.9 27.7 Approach LOS A D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)159 189 223 844 658 72 440 1033 244 48 1332 325 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)164 195 230 870 678 74 454 1065 252 49 1373 335 RTOR Reduction (vph)00400590014800201 Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 195 226 870 678 15 454 1065 104 49 1373 134 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 33.0 26.8 26.8 26.8 17.0 53.7 53.7 11.8 48.5 48.5 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 33.0 26.8 26.8 26.8 17.0 53.7 53.7 11.8 48.5 48.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 422 624 706 1026 1046 326 651 2641 1149 311 2385 1037 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.04 0.04 c0.17 c0.13 c0.09 0.17 0.01 c0.21 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.31 0.32 0.85 0.65 0.05 0.70 0.40 0.09 0.16 0.58 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 52.6 52.1 39.5 49.8 47.4 41.5 54.2 27.0 23.4 54.7 32.7 27.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 0.1 6.4 1.4 0.1 2.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 Delay (s)52.9 52.4 39.6 56.2 48.8 41.6 56.8 27.5 23.5 54.8 33.7 27.2 Level of Service D D D E D D E CCDCC Approach Delay (s)47.5 52.4 34.4 33.1 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 40.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.3 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)86 110 13 348 652 318 124 892 198 171 1101 838 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3365 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3365 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)104 133 16 419 786 383 149 1075 239 206 1327 1010 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 41 0 0 0 130 0 0 72 Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 133 4 419 1128 0 149 1075 109 206 1327 938 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 37.0 37.0 14.5 46.5 5.5 54.6 54.6 19.6 68.7 68.7 Effective Green, g (s) 5.0 37.0 37.0 14.5 46.5 5.5 54.6 54.6 19.6 68.7 68.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.32 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.14 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 903 404 343 1079 130 1333 596 239 1677 750 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.04 c0.12 c0.34 0.04 0.30 c0.12 0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.07 c0.59 v/c Ratio 0.88 0.15 0.01 1.22 1.05 1.15 0.81 0.18 0.86 0.79 1.25 Uniform Delay, d1 69.7 41.8 40.3 65.2 49.2 69.8 40.5 30.3 61.4 32.1 38.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 48.0 0.1 0.0 123.1 40.1 123.6 3.9 0.2 25.6 2.8 123.7 Delay (s)117.7 41.9 40.3 188.4 89.4 193.3 44.3 30.5 87.0 34.9 161.8 Level of Service F D D F F F D C F C F Approach Delay (s)73.0 115.5 57.3 89.5 Approach LOS E F E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 87.8 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.16 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)455 1 97 3 2 0 144 468 92 0 552 991 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)489 1 104 3 2 0 155 503 99 0 594 1066 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 82 000004000659 Lane Group Flow (vph) 489 1 22 3 2 0 155 503 59 0 594 407 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 16.5 16.5 1.5 4.5 11.9 46.0 46.0 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s) 13.5 16.5 16.5 1.5 4.5 11.9 46.0 46.0 29.5 29.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 873 756 338 34 109 273 2109 943 1352 1065 v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 c0.09 0.14 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm c0.01 0.04 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.57 0.24 0.06 0.44 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 29.1 23.9 24.2 37.2 34.3 30.3 7.3 6.5 17.7 17.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Delay (s)30.1 23.9 24.3 38.7 34.4 31.9 7.4 6.6 18.0 17.6 Level of Service CCCDC CAA BB Approach Delay (s)29.1 37.0 12.3 17.7 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.2 Sum of lost time (s)13.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)266 80 232 12 50 849 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1738 3512 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1738 3512 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)280 84 244 13 53 894 RTOR Reduction (vph) 31 08000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 333 0 249 0 53 894 Turn Type NA NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 10.6 12.8 1.8 18.6 Effective Green, g (s) 10.6 12.8 1.8 18.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.47 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 470 1147 81 1679 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.07 0.03 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.71 0.22 0.65 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 12.9 9.6 18.4 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 0.4 13.5 1.2 Delay (s)16.9 10.0 31.9 8.5 Level of Service B B C A Approach Delay (s) 16.9 10.0 9.8 Approach LOS B B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.2 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)429 0 206 000027763601692 747 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4420 1362 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4420 1362 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)477 0 229 000030870701880 830 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 18 00001340000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 477 0 211 000052835301880 830 Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 10.9 10.9 31.1 50.0 31.1 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 31.1 50.0 31.1 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 1.00 0.62 1.00 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 748 608 2749 1362 3163 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.08 0.26 c0.52 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.35 0.19 0.26 0.59 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 16.5 4.1 0.0 5.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 Delay (s)19.1 16.7 4.2 0.5 6.0 1.2 Level of Service B B A A A A Approach Delay (s)18.3 0.0 2.9 4.5 Approach LOS BAAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 292 17 50 0 578 74 0 640 1336 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1694 2787 5085 1583 4438 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1694 2787 5085 1583 4438 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 324 19 56 0 642 82 0 711 1484 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000440000233233 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 172 171 12 0 642 82 0 1220 509 Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)8.2 8.2 14.2 28.8 50.0 34.3 34.3 Effective Green, g (s)8.2 8.2 10.7 28.8 50.0 34.3 34.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.58 1.00 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)276 278 596 2929 1583 3044 934 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.10 0.00 0.05 c0.37 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.02 0.22 0.05 0.40 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 19.5 19.4 15.5 5.1 0.0 3.4 3.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 2.8 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.3 Delay (s)22.6 22.3 15.5 2.2 0.1 3.8 6.2 Level of Service C C B A A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 21.5 1.9 4.6 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)36 568 149 762 954 884 56 241 267 667 1028 73 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)38 598 157 802 1004 931 59 254 281 702 1082 77 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 119 0 0 505 0 0 245 0 0 38 Lane Group Flow (vph) 38 598 38 802 1004 426 59 254 36 702 1082 39 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 8462 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 20.9 20.9 25.6 43.4 43.4 3.0 13.2 13.2 23.7 33.9 37.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 20.9 20.9 25.6 43.4 43.4 3.0 13.2 13.2 23.7 33.9 37.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.33 0.36 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 103 1033 566 1241 2145 668 145 652 358 791 1675 569 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.12 0.16 0.20 0.01 c0.05 c0.20 c0.21 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.27 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.58 0.07 0.65 0.47 0.64 0.41 0.39 0.10 0.89 0.65 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 48.9 37.0 33.1 34.6 21.4 23.5 49.1 41.2 39.6 38.3 29.4 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.2 2.3 0.7 1.8 0.6 11.5 1.9 0.0 Delay (s)49.8 38.0 33.2 35.5 21.7 25.8 49.8 42.9 40.2 49.8 31.3 21.6 Level of Service DDCDCCDDDDCC Approach Delay (s)37.6 27.1 42.3 37.9 Approach LOS DCDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.9 Sum of lost time (s)15.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)4 102 44 595 659 7 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Adj. Flow (vph)5 138 59 804 891 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 124 00004 Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 0 59 804 891 5 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 3.2 32.9 25.7 25.7 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 3.2 32.9 25.7 25.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.70 0.55 0.55 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 159 121 3575 2792 869 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.16 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.22 0.32 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 19.2 21.0 2.5 5.8 4.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)19.4 24.1 2.5 5.9 4.8 Level of Service B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 19.4 4.0 5.9 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.8 Sum of lost time (s)13.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24 400 570 221 769 390 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3361 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3361 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)26 435 620 240 836 424 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 99 0 0 45 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 336 620 240 1215 0 Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 1.6 36.2 21.1 67.2 42.1 Effective Green, g (s) 1.6 36.2 21.1 67.2 42.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.39 0.22 0.72 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)30 1074 771 2533 1507 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 c0.18 0.07 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.87 0.31 0.80 0.09 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 20.2 34.4 4.1 22.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 105.7 0.1 5.8 0.1 4.7 Delay (s)151.7 20.2 40.2 4.1 27.1 Level of Service F C D A C Approach Delay (s) 27.6 30.1 27.1 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 28.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 93.9 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)87 353 49 298 599 82 153 609 213 47 509 114 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3475 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3475 3433 3373 1441 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)95 384 53 324 651 89 166 662 232 51 553 124 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 43 0 11 0 0 2 135 0 0 87 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 384 10 324 729 0 166 683 74 51 553 37 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 26.0 6.3 28.1 28.1 1.6 23.4 23.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 15.6 15.6 14.9 26.0 6.3 28.1 28.1 1.6 23.4 23.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.33 0.08 0.35 0.35 0.02 0.30 0.30 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 697 312 939 1141 273 1197 511 69 1046 468 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.11 0.06 c0.21 c0.05 c0.20 0.01 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.55 0.03 0.35 0.64 0.61 0.57 0.15 0.74 0.53 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 28.6 25.7 27.9 22.6 35.3 20.7 17.4 38.6 23.3 20.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 2.6 0.8 0.2 29.5 0.6 0.1 Delay (s)36.9 29.8 25.8 28.0 23.9 37.9 21.5 17.6 68.1 23.9 20.2 Level of Service DCCCC DCBECC Approach Delay (s)30.7 25.2 23.3 26.4 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 25.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.2 Sum of lost time (s)15.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)256 325 590 453 0 409 0 946 963 22 94 1207 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)275 349 634 487 0 440 0 1017 1035 24 101 1298 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 473 0 0 48 0 0 511 0 0 582 Lane Group Flow (vph) 275 349 161 487 0 392 0 1017 524 24 101 716 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 24.7 24.7 15.9 35.9 41.9 41.9 3.0 48.9 48.9 Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 24.7 24.7 15.9 31.4 41.9 41.9 3.0 48.9 48.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.03 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 400 439 373 521 835 1415 1114 51 1651 739 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.19 c0.14 c0.14 0.29 0.01 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.19 c0.45 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.79 0.43 0.93 0.47 0.72 0.47 0.47 0.06 0.97 Uniform Delay, d1 44.5 37.7 34.1 43.9 29.9 26.5 23.2 50.1 15.3 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 9.0 0.3 23.9 0.2 1.8 0.3 2.5 0.0 25.3 Delay (s)48.4 46.7 34.4 67.8 30.1 28.3 23.6 52.6 15.4 52.5 Level of Service D D C E C C C D B D Approach Delay (s)40.8 49.9 25.9 49.9 Approach LOS DDCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 104.8 Sum of lost time (s)19.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 346 0 373 0 2237 677 0 923 1147 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4908 4522 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4908 4522 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 360 0 389 0 2330 705 0 961 1247 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001308300179209 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 360 0 376 0 2952 0 0 1406 414 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s)10.4 10.4 43.1 43.1 43.1 Effective Green, g (s)10.4 10.4 43.1 43.1 43.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.67 0.67 0.67 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)551 447 3264 3008 906 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.60 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.30 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.84 0.90 0.47 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 25.5 26.4 9.1 5.3 5.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.1 12.9 4.0 0.1 0.4 Delay (s)27.6 39.3 13.1 5.4 5.6 Level of Service C D B A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 33.7 13.1 5.4 Approach LOS A C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.8 Sum of lost time (s)11.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)670 1893 509 253 259 76 463 1039 899 267 985 242 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)691 1952 525 261 267 78 477 1071 927 275 1015 249 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 19 0 0 54 0 0 280 0 0 173 Lane Group Flow (vph) 691 1952 506 261 267 24 477 1071 647 275 1015 76 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 47.0 47.0 15.0 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 47.0 47.0 15.0 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 458 1695 1226 532 1559 485 532 2008 873 343 1965 855 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 c0.38 0.04 0.05 0.05 c0.10 0.17 0.08 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.02 c0.23 0.03 v/c Ratio 1.51 1.15 0.41 0.49 0.17 0.05 0.90 0.53 0.74 0.80 0.52 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 50.0 28.7 63.2 38.1 36.6 66.2 42.5 46.1 66.0 42.8 37.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 240.0 75.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 17.2 1.0 5.6 12.0 1.0 0.2 Delay (s)305.0 125.5 28.8 63.4 38.1 36.6 83.4 43.5 51.7 78.0 43.8 37.3 Level of Service F F C E D D F D D E D D Approach Delay (s)148.7 48.8 54.2 48.9 Approach LOS F D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 91.2 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.00 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)514 304 39 150 67 89 104 1542 275 143 1087 167 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3237 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3237 3433 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)619 366 47 181 81 107 125 1858 331 172 1310 201 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 39 0 96 0 0 0 91 0 0 78 Lane Group Flow (vph) 619 366 8 181 92 0 125 1858 240 172 1310 123 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 19.5 20.9 20.9 11.1 12.5 7.9 55.8 55.8 11.5 59.4 59.4 Effective Green, g (s) 19.5 20.9 20.9 11.1 12.5 7.9 55.8 55.8 11.5 59.4 59.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 564 624 279 321 341 229 1665 745 172 1772 793 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 c0.10 0.05 0.03 0.04 c0.52 c0.10 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.15 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.10 0.59 0.03 0.56 0.27 0.55 1.12 0.32 1.00 0.74 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 49.5 44.9 40.5 51.4 48.9 53.6 31.4 19.6 53.5 23.5 16.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 67.3 1.9 0.1 1.8 0.7 2.1 61.1 0.3 68.6 1.8 0.1 Delay (s)116.9 46.8 40.5 53.3 49.6 55.7 92.5 19.9 122.2 25.2 16.1 Level of Service F DDDD EFBFCB Approach Delay (s)88.5 51.4 80.1 34.1 Approach LOS F D F C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 65.4 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 118.6 Sum of lost time (s)19.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)854 1 182 5 2 0 58 553 2 0 376 405 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)918 1 196 5 2 0 62 595 2 0 404 435 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 130 00000100307 Lane Group Flow (vph) 918 1 66 5 2 0 62 595 1 0 404 128 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.1 22.0 22.0 1.3 1.2 5.0 28.8 28.8 19.2 19.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.1 22.0 22.0 1.3 1.2 5.0 28.8 28.8 19.2 19.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.44 0.44 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1689 1192 533 35 34 136 1561 698 1041 819 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.00 c0.00 0.00 0.04 c0.17 0.11 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.54 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.46 0.38 0.00 0.39 0.16 Uniform Delay, d1 17.5 14.4 15.0 31.5 31.5 28.8 12.3 10.2 18.4 17.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.1 2.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 Delay (s)18.0 14.4 15.1 34.0 32.5 29.7 12.3 10.2 18.7 17.2 Level of Service B B B C C C B B B B Approach Delay (s)17.5 33.6 14.0 17.9 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.3 Sum of lost time (s)8.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)10 103 674 59 235 234 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1627 3497 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1627 3497 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)11 108 709 62 247 246 RTOR Reduction (vph) 102 0 14 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 0 757 0 247 246 Turn Type NA NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 16.6 8.3 28.9 Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 16.6 8.3 28.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.40 0.20 0.70 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)95 1406 356 2476 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.22 c0.14 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.18 0.54 0.69 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 9.4 15.3 2.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.5 4.7 0.1 Delay (s)18.9 10.9 20.0 2.1 Level of Service B B B A Approach Delay (s) 18.9 10.9 11.1 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.3 Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)264 0 798 00001663 949 0 739 602 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4677 1362 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4677 1362 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)293 0 887 00001848 1054 0 821 669 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 186 0000590000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 293 0 701 00002190 653 0 821 669 Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 14.3 14.3 27.7 50.0 27.7 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 14.3 14.3 27.7 50.0 27.7 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.29 0.55 1.00 0.55 1.00 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 982 797 2591 1362 2817 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.47 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 c0.25 0.48 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.88 0.85 0.48 0.29 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 13.9 17.0 9.4 0.0 5.9 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 10.8 3.6 1.2 0.2 0.8 Delay (s)14.0 27.8 13.0 1.2 4.9 0.8 Level of Service B C B A A A Approach Delay (s)24.4 0.0 10.3 3.0 Approach LOS C A B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 380 102 27 0 1754 34 0 1008 342 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1720 2787 5085 1583 4777 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1720 2787 5085 1583 4777 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 422 113 30 0 1949 38 0 1120 380 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000300008127 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 266 269 27 0 1949 38 0 1158 207 Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)11.5 11.5 16.1 26.4 50.0 31.0 31.0 Effective Green, g (s)11.5 11.5 16.1 26.4 50.0 31.0 31.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.32 0.53 1.00 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)387 396 897 2685 1583 2962 844 v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.68 0.03 0.73 0.02 0.39 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 17.6 17.6 11.6 9.0 0.0 4.8 4.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 3.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.7 Delay (s)21.6 21.2 11.6 5.4 0.0 5.2 4.9 Level of Service C C B A A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 20.9 5.3 5.1 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 7.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)94 2486 0 1099 0 0 0 1715 0 0 198 694 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)99 2617 0 1157 0 0 0 1805 0 0 208 731 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000056 Lane Group Flow (vph) 99 2617 0 1157 0 0 0 1805 0 0 208 675 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 8462 Actuated Green, G (s) 90.7 58.1 27.7 39.0 37.7 128.4 Effective Green, g (s) 90.7 58.1 27.7 39.0 37.7 128.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.65 0.42 0.20 0.28 0.27 0.92 Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2240 2125 994 1427 1379 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.51 c0.23 c0.35 0.04 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.04 1.23 1.16 1.26 0.15 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 8.6 40.5 55.6 50.0 38.5 0.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 108.5 85.0 124.9 0.2 0.1 Delay (s)8.6 149.0 140.6 174.9 38.7 0.7 Level of Service A F F F D A Approach Delay (s)143.8 140.6 174.9 9.1 Approach LOS F F F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 132.7 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 139.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.6% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 72 61 595 481 44 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Adj. Flow (vph)12 97 82 804 650 59 RTOR Reduction (vph) 87 000029 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 0 82 804 650 30 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 3.8 29.9 22.1 22.1 Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 3.8 29.9 22.1 22.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.09 0.68 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 168 154 3479 2572 801 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.05 c0.16 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.23 0.25 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 19.1 2.6 6.1 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)18.0 22.6 2.7 6.2 5.5 Level of Service B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 18.0 4.5 6.2 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.23 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 43.7 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)103 315 366 581 147 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3411 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3411 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)112 342 398 632 160 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 249 0 0 22 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 93 398 632 189 0 Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.68 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 761 525 2392 1610 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.03 c0.12 c0.18 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.83 0.12 0.76 0.26 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 21.4 31.8 5.0 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 31.2 0.0 5.5 0.3 0.1 Delay (s)66.9 21.5 37.3 5.3 11.7 Level of Service E C D A B Approach Delay (s) 32.7 17.7 11.7 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)189 1264 79 109 472 28 120 685 522 180 547 166 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3510 3433 3298 1441 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3510 3433 3298 1441 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)205 1374 86 118 513 30 130 745 567 196 595 180 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0400172600121 Lane Group Flow (vph) 205 1374 42 118 539 0 130 892 377 196 595 59 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 7.9 39.8 39.8 3.0 34.9 7.4 34.9 34.9 6.0 33.5 33.5 Effective Green, g (s) 7.9 39.8 39.8 3.0 34.9 7.4 34.9 34.9 6.0 33.5 33.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.34 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.33 0.33 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 264 1371 613 146 1193 247 1121 490 201 1154 516 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.39 c0.02 0.15 0.04 c0.27 c0.06 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.26 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.78 1.00 0.07 0.81 0.45 0.53 0.80 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 46.5 31.5 19.8 49.6 26.4 46.0 30.7 30.3 48.3 28.0 24.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 12.2 24.8 0.1 25.6 0.4 0.9 4.2 7.6 55.6 0.5 0.1 Delay (s)58.8 56.3 19.9 75.2 26.8 46.9 34.9 37.8 103.9 28.5 24.3 Level of Service EEBEC DCDFCC Approach Delay (s)54.7 35.5 36.8 43.0 Approach LOS DDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.7 Sum of lost time (s)13.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX A3 Cumulative Conditions 6-Lane Scenario HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)727 194 953 192 0 416 0 832 415 172 1078 589 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)782 209 1025 206 0 447 0 895 446 185 1159 633 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 12 0 0 42 0 0 314 0 0 382 Lane Group Flow (vph) 782 209 1013 206 0 405 0 895 132 185 1159 251 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.8 40.5 40.5 4.5 17.2 29.7 29.7 6.0 39.7 39.7 Effective Green, g (s) 33.8 40.5 40.5 4.5 17.2 29.7 29.7 6.0 39.7 39.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.04 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.06 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1160 755 641 154 479 1051 828 106 1405 628 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 0.11 c0.06 0.15 0.25 c0.10 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm c0.64 0.05 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.28 1.58 1.34 0.85 0.85 0.16 1.75 0.82 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 19.9 29.8 47.8 40.1 33.1 25.9 47.0 27.0 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 1.46 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 268.2 189.1 12.4 8.7 0.4 352.7 2.7 0.9 Delay (s)29.6 20.0 298.0 236.9 52.5 41.8 26.4 399.8 21.5 32.3 Level of Service C C F F D D C F C C Approach Delay (s)165.1 110.7 36.6 60.4 Approach LOS F F D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 95.8 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.24 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 106.6% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 1335 0 494 0 1486 588 0 550 2008 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.90 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4869 4333 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4869 4333 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 1391 0 515 0 1548 612 0 573 2183 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001107100342584 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 1391 0 504 0 2089 0 0 1323 507 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s)42.2 42.2 46.5 46.5 46.5 Effective Green, g (s)42.2 42.2 46.5 46.5 46.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1449 1176 2264 2015 633 v/s Ratio Prot c0.41 c0.43 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.96 0.43 0.92 1.05dr 0.80 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 20.4 25.1 20.6 22.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 14.9 0.1 5.3 1.7 10.3 Delay (s)42.9 20.5 25.8 22.3 33.1 Level of Service D C C C C Approach Delay (s)0.0 36.9 25.8 26.6 Approach LOS A D C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 29.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)160 232 174 788 680 86 372 1011 291 82 1462 394 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)165 239 179 812 701 89 384 1042 300 85 1507 406 RTOR Reduction (vph)00400720018500221 Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 239 175 812 701 17 384 1042 115 85 1507 185 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 32.2 24.6 24.6 24.6 16.2 48.0 48.0 15.0 46.8 46.8 Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 32.2 24.6 24.6 24.6 16.2 48.0 48.0 15.0 46.8 46.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.37 0.37 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 437 648 715 977 996 310 644 2449 1065 410 2388 1038 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 0.05 0.03 c0.16 c0.14 c0.08 0.16 0.02 c0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.37 0.25 0.83 0.70 0.06 0.60 0.43 0.11 0.21 0.63 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 50.2 50.2 37.1 48.5 47.1 41.1 51.6 28.6 25.0 49.9 32.3 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 0.1 5.8 2.3 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.4 Delay (s)50.4 50.5 37.1 54.3 49.4 41.1 52.6 29.2 25.2 50.0 33.6 26.8 Level of Service DDDDDDDCCDCC Approach Delay (s)46.4 51.4 33.7 32.9 Approach LOS DDCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 125.6 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)83 111 16 423 609 312 120 902 211 187 1416 827 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3359 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3359 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)100 134 19 510 734 376 145 1087 254 225 1706 996 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 14 0 45 0 0 0 169 0 0 83 Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 134 5 510 1065 0 145 1087 85 225 1706 913 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 36.6 36.6 17.5 48.8 5.5 48.5 48.5 22.7 65.7 65.7 Effective Green, g (s) 5.3 36.6 36.6 17.5 48.8 5.5 48.5 48.5 22.7 65.7 65.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.34 0.04 0.34 0.34 0.16 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 896 401 415 1134 131 1706 531 278 2310 719 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.04 c0.15 c0.32 c0.04 0.21 0.13 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 c0.58 v/c Ratio 0.79 0.15 0.01 1.23 0.94 1.11 0.64 0.16 0.81 0.74 1.27 Uniform Delay, d1 69.1 41.9 40.5 63.5 46.5 69.5 40.6 33.7 58.9 32.4 39.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 27.3 0.1 0.0 122.6 14.6 110.2 0.9 0.2 15.4 1.4 132.0 Delay (s)96.4 42.1 40.5 186.1 61.1 179.7 41.5 33.9 74.2 33.7 171.4 Level of Service F D D F E F D C E C F Approach Delay (s)63.4 100.4 53.7 83.7 Approach LOS E F D F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 80.1 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 144.6 Sum of lost time (s)14.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 94.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)411 1 64 3 2 0 128 550 92 0 531 994 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)442 1 69 3 2 0 138 591 99 0 571 1069 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 55 000003900644 Lane Group Flow (vph) 442 1 14 3 2 0 138 591 60 0 571 425 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 15.7 15.7 1.5 1.3 11.2 46.3 46.3 30.5 30.5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 15.7 15.7 1.5 1.3 11.2 46.3 46.3 30.5 30.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1034 724 324 35 32 258 2136 956 1407 1108 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.00 c0.00 0.00 c0.08 0.17 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.04 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.53 0.28 0.06 0.41 0.38 Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 24.3 24.5 36.9 37.1 30.3 7.2 6.3 16.6 16.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 Delay (s)26.8 24.3 24.6 38.4 38.2 31.4 7.3 6.3 16.9 16.7 Level of Service CCCDD CAA BB Approach Delay (s)26.5 38.3 11.2 16.8 Approach LOS C D B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 16.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 76.7 Sum of lost time (s)13.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)135 183 254 3 44 830 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1682 3533 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1682 3533 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)142 193 267 3 46 874 RTOR Reduction (vph) 143 01000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 192 0 269 0 46 874 Turn Type NA NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 13.9 1.8 19.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 13.9 1.8 19.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.37 0.05 0.52 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 357 1303 85 1849 v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 0.08 0.03 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.54 0.21 0.54 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 8.1 17.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 3.7 0.9 Delay (s)14.0 8.5 21.3 6.6 Level of Service B A C A Approach Delay (s) 14.0 8.5 7.3 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.0 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.7 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)427 0 208 000025763601720 734 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.92 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4407 1362 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4407 1362 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)474 0 231 000028670701911 816 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 00001330000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 474 0 215 000050735301911 816 Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 10.8 10.8 31.2 50.0 31.2 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 10.8 10.8 31.2 50.0 31.2 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.62 1.00 0.62 1.00 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 742 602 2750 1362 3173 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.08 0.26 c0.52 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.36 0.18 0.26 0.60 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 16.6 4.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 1.2 Delay (s)19.2 16.8 4.1 0.5 5.8 1.2 Level of Service B B A A A A Approach Delay (s)18.4 0.0 2.8 4.4 Approach LOS BAAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)4.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 222 11 75 0 578 74 0 735 1292 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.93 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1693 2787 5085 1583 4469 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1693 2787 5085 1583 4469 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 247 12 83 0 642 82 0 817 1436 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000660000223223 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 128 131 17 0 642 82 0 1312 495 Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)8.0 8.0 14.0 29.0 50.0 34.5 34.5 Effective Green, g (s)8.0 8.0 10.5 29.0 50.0 34.5 34.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.58 1.00 0.69 0.69 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)269 271 585 2949 1583 3084 940 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.05 c0.36 v/c Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.03 0.22 0.05 0.43 0.53 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 19.1 15.7 5.0 0.0 3.4 3.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.22 7.72 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.7 Delay (s)19.6 19.6 15.7 2.9 0.1 1.1 30.9 Level of Service B B B A A A C Approach Delay (s)0.0 18.7 2.5 10.6 Approach LOS ABAB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.7 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)44 633 199 782 984 826 67 259 263 544 1007 72 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 5085 2787 3433 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)46 666 209 823 1036 869 71 273 277 573 1060 76 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 141 0 0 386 0 0 234 0 0 34 Lane Group Flow (vph) 46 666 68 823 1036 483 71 273 43 573 1060 42 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 8462 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.5 22.3 22.3 23.0 41.8 41.8 3.5 15.4 15.4 19.8 31.7 35.2 Effective Green, g (s) 3.5 22.3 22.3 23.0 41.8 41.8 3.5 15.4 15.4 19.8 31.7 35.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.32 0.35 Clearance Time (s) 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 120 1134 622 1148 2126 662 175 783 429 680 1612 557 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.13 c0.16 0.20 0.01 0.05 c0.17 c0.21 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 c0.30 0.02 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.38 0.59 0.11 0.72 0.49 0.73 0.41 0.35 0.10 0.84 0.66 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 47.2 34.7 30.9 35.5 21.3 24.4 47.2 37.8 36.3 38.6 29.5 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.75 1.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.9 0.1 1.8 0.2 4.3 0.6 1.2 0.5 9.0 2.1 0.0 Delay (s)47.9 35.7 31.1 37.3 21.5 28.7 43.0 29.6 57.9 47.6 31.6 21.6 Level of Service DDCDCCDCEDCC Approach Delay (s)35.2 28.5 43.8 36.5 Approach LOS DCDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)10.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)4 101 45 651 606 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1617 1770 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Adj. Flow (vph)5 136 61 880 819 8 RTOR Reduction (vph) 122 00004 Lane Group Flow (vph) 19 0 61 880 819 4 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.6 3.2 31.6 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 3.2 31.6 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.07 0.69 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 124 3532 2727 849 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.17 c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.49 0.25 0.30 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 18.6 20.4 2.6 5.8 4.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)18.7 23.4 2.6 6.0 4.9 Level of Service B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 18.7 4.0 6.0 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 45.5 Sum of lost time (s)13.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)16 401 591 238 765 238 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3413 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3413 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)17 436 642 259 832 259 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 92 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 344 642 259 1071 0 Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 0.7 36.6 21.7 67.3 41.6 Effective Green, g (s) 0.7 36.6 21.7 67.3 41.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.01 0.39 0.23 0.72 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)13 1098 802 2564 1528 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.12 c0.19 0.07 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 1.31 0.31 0.80 0.10 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 46.1 19.5 33.6 3.8 20.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 363.0 0.1 5.4 0.1 2.7 Delay (s)409.1 19.5 39.0 3.9 23.3 Level of Service F B D A C Approach Delay (s) 34.1 28.9 23.3 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 27.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 92.9 Sum of lost time (s)18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015 Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)73 347 35 384 671 126 108 590 239 59 457 89 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3455 3433 3370 1441 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3455 3433 3370 1441 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)79 377 38 417 729 137 117 641 260 64 497 97 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 31 0 15 0 0 3 157 0 0 69 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 377 7 417 851 0 117 664 77 64 497 28 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.7 15.7 15.7 17.5 29.5 5.3 26.9 26.9 2.2 23.8 23.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.7 15.7 15.7 17.5 29.5 5.3 26.9 26.9 2.2 23.8 23.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.36 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.03 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 683 306 1074 1254 224 1115 477 93 1036 463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.11 0.08 c0.25 c0.03 c0.20 0.02 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.05 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.55 0.02 0.39 0.68 0.52 0.60 0.16 0.69 0.48 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 37.9 29.6 26.6 27.3 21.9 36.8 22.7 19.2 39.2 23.7 20.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.6 1.0 1.0 0.2 15.5 0.5 0.1 Delay (s)38.9 30.8 26.6 27.4 23.5 37.8 23.7 19.5 54.7 24.1 20.8 Level of Service DCCCC DCBDCC Approach Delay (s)31.8 24.8 24.3 26.6 Approach LOS CCCC Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 81.3 Sum of lost time (s)20.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Santa Rita Road & I-580 EB off-ramp/Pimlico Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)285 330 611 438 0 426 0 1007 936 20 86 1213 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 4.0 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.88 0.95 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 1863 1583 3433 2787 3539 2787 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)306 355 657 471 0 458 0 1083 1006 22 92 1304 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 452 0 0 44 0 0 590 0 0 587 Lane Group Flow (vph) 306 355 205 471 0 414 0 1083 416 22 92 717 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot custom NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 3 8 7 5 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 8 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 23.8 24.8 24.8 13.7 20.8 36.1 36.1 6.1 46.2 46.2 Effective Green, g (s) 23.8 24.8 24.8 13.7 20.8 36.1 36.1 6.1 46.2 46.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.4 4.5 5.4 5.4 4.0 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 817 462 393 470 580 1278 1006 108 1635 731 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.19 c0.14 0.15 0.31 0.01 0.03 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.15 c0.45 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.77 0.52 1.00 0.71 0.85 0.41 0.20 0.06 0.98 Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 34.9 32.5 43.1 36.8 29.4 24.0 44.6 14.9 26.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 0.86 1.92 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 6.8 0.6 42.0 3.5 7.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 27.3 Delay (s)32.0 41.7 33.1 85.2 40.3 36.5 25.2 54.1 12.9 78.2 Level of Service C D C F D D C D B E Approach Delay (s)35.1 63.1 31.1 73.6 Approach LOS D E C E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Santa Rita Road/Tassajara Road & I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 337 0 515 0 2351 677 0 930 1147 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.94 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4915 4524 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4915 4524 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 351 0 536 0 2449 705 0 969 1247 RTOR Reduction (vph)000001005100115196 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 351 0 526 0 3103 0 0 1478 427 Turn Type Prot custom NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s)20.2 20.2 68.5 68.5 68.5 Effective Green, g (s)20.2 20.2 68.5 68.5 68.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.68 0.68 0.68 Clearance Time (s)5.4 5.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)693 563 3367 3099 933 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.63 0.33 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.31 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.93 0.92 0.48 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 35.5 39.2 13.5 7.4 7.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 22.4 5.1 0.5 1.6 Delay (s)35.7 61.7 15.0 7.9 8.8 Level of Service D E B A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 51.4 15.0 8.2 Approach LOS A D B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)11.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)992 1844 458 315 281 155 348 1477 841 289 988 211 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.94 0.91 1.00 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.97 0.86 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 2787 4990 5085 1583 4990 6408 2787 3433 6408 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)1023 1901 472 325 290 160 359 1523 867 298 1019 218 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 13 0 0 111 0 0 279 0 0 151 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1023 1901 459 325 290 49 359 1523 588 298 1019 67 Turn Type Prot NA pm+ov Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 52316 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 46.2 46.2 15.8 46.0 46.0 Effective Green, g (s) 20.0 50.0 66.0 16.0 46.0 46.0 16.0 46.2 46.2 15.8 46.0 46.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.33 0.44 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.31 0.31 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 458 1695 1226 532 1559 485 532 1974 858 362 1965 855 v/s Ratio Prot c0.30 c0.37 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.07 c0.24 c0.09 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.03 0.21 0.02 v/c Ratio 2.23 1.12 0.37 0.61 0.19 0.10 0.67 0.77 0.69 0.82 0.52 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 65.0 50.0 28.2 64.0 38.2 37.2 64.5 47.1 45.5 65.7 42.9 36.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 562.2 63.2 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 2.7 3.0 4.4 13.4 1.0 0.2 Delay (s)627.2 113.2 28.2 65.5 38.3 37.3 67.2 50.1 50.0 79.1 43.9 37.1 Level of Service F F C E D D E D D E D D Approach Delay (s)256.2 49.5 52.3 49.7 Approach LOS F D D D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 133.5 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 101.2% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)391 232 24 191 80 140 105 2068 370 175 1067 154 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 3433 3201 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 3433 3201 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Adj. Flow (vph)471 280 29 230 96 169 127 2492 446 211 1286 186 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 24 0 101 0 0 0 177 0 0 105 Lane Group Flow (vph) 471 280 5 230 164 0 127 2492 269 211 1286 81 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2 8 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.5 13.1 13.1 6.4 13.0 5.0 33.5 33.5 5.5 34.0 34.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.5 13.1 13.1 6.4 13.0 5.0 33.5 33.5 5.5 34.0 34.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.5 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.3 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.5 2.5 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 287 596 267 282 535 221 2190 682 125 2222 692 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 c0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 c0.49 c0.12 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.17 0.05 v/c Ratio 1.64 0.47 0.02 0.82 0.31 0.57 1.14 0.40 1.69 0.58 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 35.6 29.2 27.0 35.1 28.4 35.4 22.1 15.2 36.1 16.5 13.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 303.8 1.0 0.0 16.0 0.6 2.9 68.2 0.5 341.6 0.4 0.1 Delay (s)339.4 30.2 27.0 51.2 29.0 38.3 90.4 15.7 377.8 16.9 13.1 Level of Service F CCDC DFBFBB Approach Delay (s)216.8 39.3 77.4 61.8 Approach LOS F D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 87.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.8 Sum of lost time (s)14.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fallon Road/Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road/Syrah Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)940 1 163 5 2 0 40 525 2 0 398 383 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Lane Util. Factor 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.88 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)4990 3539 1583 1770 1863 1770 3539 1583 3539 2787 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph)1011 1 175 5 2 0 43 565 2 0 428 412 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 115 00000100291 Lane Group Flow (vph) 1011 1 60 5 2 0 43 565 1 0 428 121 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 22.7 22.7 1.3 1.2 4.9 29.0 29.0 19.5 19.5 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.7 22.7 1.3 1.2 4.9 29.0 29.0 19.5 19.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.44 0.44 0.29 0.29 Clearance Time (s)4.6 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1719 1214 543 35 34 131 1550 693 1042 821 v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.00 c0.00 0.00 0.02 c0.16 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.00 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.33 0.36 0.00 0.41 0.15 Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 14.3 14.9 31.9 31.9 29.1 12.4 10.5 18.7 17.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.0 0.1 2.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 Delay (s)18.5 14.3 15.0 34.5 32.9 29.6 12.5 10.5 19.1 17.3 Level of Service B B B C C C B B B B Approach Delay (s)17.9 34.0 13.7 18.2 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 103 727 59 238 237 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.88 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1624 3499 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1624 3499 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)9 108 765 62 251 249 RTOR Reduction (vph) 102 0 13 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 0 814 0 251 249 Turn Type NA NA Prot NA Protected Phases 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 2.4 17.1 7.8 28.9 Effective Green, g (s) 2.4 17.1 7.8 28.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.41 0.19 0.70 Clearance Time (s)4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)94 1449 334 2476 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.23 c0.14 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.16 0.56 0.75 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 9.2 15.8 2.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.6 8.2 0.1 Delay (s)18.8 10.8 24.0 2.1 Level of Service B B C A Approach Delay (s) 18.8 10.8 13.1 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 41.3 Sum of lost time (s)14.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: El Charro Road & I-580 EB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)252 0 789 00001646 931 0 745 605 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 2787 4681 1362 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 2787 4681 1362 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)280 0 877 00001829 1034 0 828 672 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 148 0000550000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 280 0 729 00002157 651 0 828 672 Turn Type custom custom NA Free NA Free Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 26.5 50.0 26.5 50.0 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 26.5 50.0 26.5 50.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.53 1.00 0.53 1.00 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1064 864 2481 1362 2695 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.46 0.16 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 c0.26 0.48 0.42 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.84 0.87 0.48 0.31 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 13.0 16.1 10.2 0.0 6.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 7.2 4.5 1.2 0.3 0.8 Delay (s)13.0 23.4 14.7 1.2 5.6 0.8 Level of Service B C B A A A Approach Delay (s)20.9 0.0 11.7 3.4 Approach LOS C A B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: El Charro Road/Fallon Road & I-580 WB on-ramp/I-580 WB off-ramp 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)0 0 0 366 95 0 0 1663 34 0 1037 338 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.91 1.00 0.86 0.86 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1719 5085 1583 4783 1362 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1719 5085 1583 4783 1362 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph)0 0 0 407 106 0 0 1848 38 0 1152 376 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000006128 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 252 261 0 0 1848 38 0 1184 210 Turn Type Perm NA custom NA Free NA Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 1 8 Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s)11.4 11.4 31.1 50.0 31.1 31.1 Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 31.1 50.0 31.1 31.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.62 1.00 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)383 392 3163 1583 2975 847 v/s Ratio Prot c0.36 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.67 0.58 0.02 0.40 0.25 Uniform Delay, d1 17.5 17.6 5.6 0.0 4.7 4.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.20 0.03 Incremental Delay, d2 3.1 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.5 Delay (s)20.6 20.9 2.7 0.0 1.3 0.7 Level of Service C C A A A A Approach Delay (s)0.0 20.7 2.7 1.1 Approach LOS A C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 4.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.0 Sum of lost time (s)7.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)20 2473 0 1133 0 0 0 1551 0 0 153 781 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.94 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 5085 4990 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph)21 2603 0 1193 0 0 0 1633 0 0 161 822 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000000000087 Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 2603 0 1193 0 0 0 1633 0 0 161 735 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA pm+ov Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 1 6 5 2 3 Permitted Phases 8462 Actuated Green, G (s) 68.7 34.1 29.7 22.0 20.7 89.4 Effective Green, g (s) 68.7 34.1 29.7 22.0 20.7 89.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.69 0.34 0.30 0.22 0.21 0.89 Clearance Time (s)5.3 4.9 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2358 1734 1482 1119 1053 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.51 c0.24 c0.32 0.03 0.32 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.01 1.50 0.80 1.46 0.15 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 4.9 33.0 32.5 39.0 32.5 1.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 228.6 3.1 210.8 0.3 0.1 Delay (s)4.9 261.5 35.6 242.4 32.8 1.0 Level of Service A F D F C A Approach Delay (s)259.5 35.6 242.4 6.2 Approach LOS F D F A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 174.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 100.0 Sum of lost time (s)14.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 110.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 10 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)9 73 57 549 484 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 Frt 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1630 1770 5085 5085 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Adj. Flow (vph)12 99 77 742 654 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 89 000030 Lane Group Flow (vph) 22 0 77 742 654 31 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA Perm Protected Phases 4 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.5 3.8 30.2 22.4 22.4 Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 3.8 30.2 22.4 22.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.09 0.69 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 153 3490 2589 806 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.04 0.15 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.50 0.21 0.25 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 18.0 19.2 2.5 6.1 5.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 Delay (s)18.1 21.8 2.6 6.2 5.4 Level of Service B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 18.1 4.4 6.1 Approach LOS B A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 44.0 Sum of lost time (s)13.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 11 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)102 309 371 634 152 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.88 0.97 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1770 2787 3433 3539 3418 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1770 2787 3433 3539 3418 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)111 336 403 689 165 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 244 0 0 20 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 111 92 403 689 194 0 Turn Type NA custom Prot NA NA Protected Phases 4 5 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 21.4 12.0 53.0 37.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.27 0.15 0.68 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 135 761 525 2392 1613 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.03 c0.12 c0.19 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.82 0.12 0.77 0.29 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 35.7 21.4 31.9 5.1 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.2 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.2 Delay (s)65.9 21.5 37.9 5.4 11.7 Level of Service E C D A B Approach Delay (s) 32.5 17.4 11.7 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Crow Canyon Road/Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara 3/18/2015 Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3-Lanes Synchro 8 Report JMP Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)185 1271 84 104 477 25 132 657 515 170 540 174 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)3433 3539 1583 4990 3513 3433 3291 1441 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)3433 3539 1583 4990 3513 3433 3291 1441 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph)201 1382 91 113 518 27 143 714 560 185 587 189 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0300192700128 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 1382 45 113 542 0 143 869 359 185 587 61 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 9.7 40.1 40.1 3.0 33.4 7.5 34.5 34.5 6.0 33.0 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.7 40.1 40.1 3.0 33.4 7.5 34.5 34.5 6.0 33.0 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.03 0.33 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.32 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.7 5.7 4.0 5.7 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.0 5.3 5.3 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 1383 619 146 1144 251 1107 485 201 1138 509 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 c0.39 c0.02 0.15 0.04 c0.26 c0.05 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.25 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.62 1.00 0.07 0.77 0.47 0.57 0.78 0.74 0.92 0.52 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 44.7 31.2 19.6 49.5 27.6 46.0 30.7 30.1 48.1 28.3 24.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 23.9 0.1 20.4 0.4 1.8 3.9 6.2 41.2 0.5 0.1 Delay (s)47.1 55.1 19.7 69.9 28.0 47.8 34.6 36.3 89.3 28.8 24.7 Level of Service D E B E C D C D F C C Approach Delay (s)52.2 35.2 36.4 39.7 Approach LOS DDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 102.6 Sum of lost time (s)13.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.8% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group     Appendix B Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis Roadway SegmentSegment Length (mi)Speed LimitSpeed ConstantMedian/ CurbCross Section AdjAccess PointsAccess DensityLanes Access AdjBase Freeflow Speed1 (mph)Distance between SignalsSignal Spacing AdjFreeflow Speed (mph)Freeflow Travel Time (sec)ApproachPeak HourSignal delayAverage Travel Time (sec)Average Speed (mph)Speed RatioSegment LOSAM 24.8 69.6 26 65% CPM 37.8 82.6 22 55% CAM 18.4 63.2 28 70% BPM 34.9 79.7 23 57% CAM 86.2 46 100%APM86.2 46 100%AAM 9.0 95.2 42 91%APM 24.8 111.0 36 78% BAM 13.2 98.5 40 86%APM 24.5 109.8 36 78% BAM 2.5 87.8 45 97%APM 3.3 88.6 45 97%AAM 11.8 329.2 45 97%APM 8.0 325.4 45 97%AAM 8.0 325.4 45 97%APM 8.4 325.8 45 97%AAM213.9 40 99%APM213.9 40 99%AAM 23.7 237.6 36 89%APM 30.5 244.4 35 87%AAM 28.0 278.8 37 89%APM 50.8 301.6 35 84% BAM250.8 42 101%APM250.8 42 101%AExisting Conditions40.41600 0.9 41.621100 0.9 40.25800 1.0 45.95800 1.0 46.45540021 -0.36 -0.318 -0.30 -0.2112SouthboundNorthbound45 46.8 -2.7Restrictive Median, CurbCamino Tassajara between Lusitano Street and Crow Canyon Rd2.443.9 213.9SouthboundNorthbound46.8-2.7Restrictive Median, Curb45Camino Tassajara between Crow Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley Road2.943.9250.80-0.21150 0.9SouthboundNorthbound46.80No Median, No Curb21600Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara between Fallon Rd and Windemere Parkway1.146.5 85.3SouthboundNorthbound46.8 0No Median, No Curb4545Camino Tassajara between Windemere parkway and Lusitano Street4.146.5 317.41.0 46.5SouthboundNorthbound46.8 -0.5Non-restrictive Median, Curb5Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr and North Dublin Ranch Dr0.543.9 44.8SouthboundNorthbound46.8 -2.7Restrictive Median, Curb2 -0.24545Tassajara Rd between North Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon Road1.146.0 86.24 Roadway SegmentSegment Length (mi)Speed LimitSpeed ConstantMedian/ CurbCross Section AdjAccess PointsAccess DensityLanesAccess AdjBase Freeflow Speed1 (mph)Distance between SignalsSignal Spacing AdjFreeflow Speed (mph)Freeflow Travel Time (sec)ApproachPeak HourSignal delayAverage Travel Time (sec)Segment LOSAM 34.9 79.7 CPM 25.2 70.0 CAM 44.3 89.1 DPM 92.5 137.3EAM86.0APM86.0AAM 7.4 93.4APM 12.3 98.3AAM 18.0 103.1 BPM 18.7 103.8 BAM 4.1 89.2APM 5.3 90.4AAM 35.6 352.3APM 13.8 330.5AAM 10.0 326.7APM 10.9 327.6AAM213.9APM213.9AAM 23.9 237.8APM 26.8 240.7AAM 29.8 280.6APM 56.3 307.1 BAM 250.8APM250.8ACumulative Conditions 4‐Lane Scenario41.6 250.8SouthboundNorthbound-2.7 0 0 2 -0.2 43.90.9 40.4 213.9SouthboundNorthboundCamino Tassajara between Crow Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley Road2.9 45 46.8Restrictive Median, Curb0 0 2 -0.2 43.9 1150Camino Tassajara between Lusitano Street and Crow Canyon Rd2.4 45 46.8Restrictive Median, Curb-2.71600 0.946.6 316.7SouthboundNorthbound0 18 4 2 -0.2 46.61.0 46.5 85.1SouthboundNorthboundCamino Tassajara between Windemere parkway and Lusitano Street4.1 45 46.8No Median, No Curb6 5 2 -0.2 46.6 5800Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara between Fallon Rd and Windemere Parkway1.1 45 46.8No Median, No Curb021600 1.046.0 86.0SouthboundNorthbound-0.5 5 5 2 -0.2 46.10.9 40.2 44.8SouthboundNorthboundTassajara Rd between North Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon Road1.1 45 46.8Non-restrictive Median, Curb2 4 2 -0.2 43.9 1100Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr and North Dublin Ranch Dr0.5 45 46.8Restrictive Median, Curb-2.75800 1.0 Roadway SegmentSegment Length (mi)Speed LimitSpeed ConstantMedian/ CurbCross Section AdjAccess PointsAccess DensityLanes Access AdjBase Freeflow Speed1 (mph)Distance between SignalsSignal Spacing AdjFreeflow Speed (mph)Freeflow Travel Time (sec)ApproachPeak HourSignal delayAverage Travel Time (sec)Average Speed (mph)Speed RatioSegment LOSAM 33.7 78.4 23 57% CPM 16.9 61.6 29 72% BAM 41.5 86.2 21 52% CPM 90.4 135.1 13 32%EAM 85.9 46 100%APM85.9 46 100%AAM 7.3 93.2 42 91%APM 12.5 98.4 40 87%AAM 16.9 101.9 39 84% BPM 19.1 104.1 38 82% BAM 3.9 88.9 45 97%APM 5.4 90.4 44 94%AAM 29.9 346.0 43 92%APM 13.8 329.9 45 96%AAM 8.5 324.6 45 96%APM 10.8 326.9 45 96%AAM213.5 40 99%APM213.5 40 99%AAM 23.5 237.0 36 89%APM 28.0 241.5 36 89%AAM 30.8 281.1 37 89%APM 55.1 305.4 34 82% BAM250.3 42 101%APM250.3 42 101%ACumulative Conditions 6‐Lane Scenario41.7 250.3SouthboundNorthbound-2.7 0 0 3 -0.1 44.00.9 40.5 213.5SouthboundNorthboundCamino Tassajara between Crow Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley Road2.9 45 46.8Restrictive Median, Curb0 0 3 -0.1 44.0 1150Camino Tassajara between Lusitano Street and Crow Canyon Rd2.4 45 46.8Restrictive Median, Curb-2.71600 0.946.7 316.1SouthboundNorthbound0 18 4 3 -0.1 46.71.0 46.6 85.0SouthboundNorthboundCamino Tassajara between Windemere parkway and Lusitano Street4.1 45 46.8No Median, No Curb6 5 3 -0.1 46.7 5800Tassajara Rd/Camino Tassajara between Fallon Rd and Windemere Parkway1.1 45 46.8No Median, No Curb021600 1.046.1 85.9SouthboundNorthbound-0.5 5 5 3 -0.1 46.20.9 40.3 44.7SouthboundNorthboundTassajara Rd between North Dublin Ranch Dr and Fallon Road1.1 45 46.8Non-restrictive Median, Curb2 4 3 -0.1 44.0 1100Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr and North Dublin Ranch Dr0.5 45 46.8Restrictive Median, Curb-2.75800 1.0     Appendix C Lane Assumptions   Original Model Inputs (NB/SB)Modified based on Existing Conditions (NB/SB)Model Adjustment?Lane Assumptions (NB/SB)Change from Modified Existing?Lane Assumptions (NB/SB)Change from Modified Existing?Tassajara Rd/Camino TassajaraI‐580 WB Ramps to Dublin Blvd3/33/3No3/3No3/3NoDublin Blvd to Central Pkwy2/22/3Yes2/3No3/3YesCentral Pkwy to S Dublin Ranch Cir2/22/2No2/2No3/3YesS Dublin Ranch Cir to N Dublin Ranch Cir2/22/3Yes2/3No3/3YesN Dublin Ranch Cir to Fallon Dr2/21/1Yes2/2Yes3/3YesFallon Dr to Windemere Pkwy1/11/1No2/2Yes3/3YesWindemere Pkwy to Lucitano St1/11/1No2/2Yes2/2YesLucitano St to Tassajara Ranch Dr2/22/2No2/2No2/2NoTassajara Ranch Dr to Crow Canyon Rd 2/23/3Yes3/3No3/3NoFallon DrI‐580 WB Ramps to Central Pkwy1/12/2Yes3/3Yes3/3NoCentral Pkwy to Gleason Dr1/13/3Yes3/3No3/3NoGleason Dr to Signal Hill Dr1/12/2Yes3/3Yes3/3NoSignal Hill Dr to Tassajara Rd1/13/3Yes3/3No3/3NoOther modifications to the model ‐ added a second centroid connector to represent Silvera Ranch Dr connecting to Tassajara Rd in addition to Fallon Rd to better model traffic assignment stemming from that residential development.SegmentExisting ConditionsScenario 1Scenario 2 Lane Assumptions    Tassajara Rd Fallon Rd Dublin Blvd Tassajara Rd Fallon Rd Dublin Blvd Original 2013Final 2013  Lane Assumptions (cont’d)    Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon Rd Windemere Pkwy Highland Rd Windemere Pkwy Highland Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Tassajara Original 2013Final 2013  Lane Assumptions (cont’d)    Tassajara Rd Fallon Rd Dublin Blvd Tassajara Rd Fallon Rd Dublin Blvd Scenario 1 (2040)Scenario 2 (2040)  Lane Assumptions (cont’d)     Camino Tassajara Crow Canyon Rd Windemere Pkwy Highland Rd Windemere Pkwy Highland Rd Crow Canyon Rd Camino Tassajara Scenario 1 (2040)Scenario 2 (2040)      Appendix D Model Link Volumes Link Volumes     Tassajara Rd 2013 AM Link Volumes (cont’d)   Tassajara Rd 2013 PM Link Volumes – AM Peak Hour   Windemere Pkwy Tassajara Rd Windemere PkwyTassajara Rd Scenario 1Scenario 2  Link Volumes – PM Peak Hour  Windemere Pkwy Tassajara Rd Windemere PkwyTassajara Rd Scenario 1Scenario 2      Appendix E Select‐link Analysis   3 1 628 80 51705 893 312 2475420 248 510 168 00 170 3419 02 3112 209 1 3 4 6 7 1 561 2 00 00 17225 0 1 1 3 1 1 750336470 56060 1 0603679 2 0589033188 0 0 573536438131 2 3 8 10 2 1 6 1 7 5 186 10600 470 36 561 2 51432 13 1 1 0 589 0167411033732112 0 752400 02 00 632 7 2 0511 35 74 625 001231 247 270 1045698103 00577 659 132 1 0 0 00 752410367763683668 00 2 30 352 3 00057 3 013929676 629 0 10123300 1 43 0000 00 4562810 136 310034 1271 0 10 226 4803653 05 33 81 00 123 125220 24146 2 561 103633100 314 0000 16 5 0021 331 536 11 1522 28 00 151 00 0000 9 503 0 000 13 525412000030 200 0 003047 814 10 100 00220 1 5 1017 1541 2085152 0100 1 25 00 264 1 1 51 1081 343 75 4136846870 5447171 513 00227 1 1 0117 92 24661 0 14 10 2 6 003 1004570 118267710313 247503 20133 168 220022 0 3411 014 00 00 32 814 00 00404570 4054522413 5921 315 01 1237261 0 001127311703 2 0 00 1 07 1 0 97 65 4 4 8 05 6700000015251 561220 342300 3 00139 77114118 0 12 0 0 0 0 00 230 247 00 33 188 1837 213 13647 1322 00 8 45 0 0011775168715702 1 0 7015010 00 0 0 12131159121 1 3371367781 0000 414000 33 188 00770 3718000300 1 0 0251910221000 0069 3 0 05000 71300253416111560 0 1 03 0 010 10151 006 1 0 0 00 0 0 3 591 2 132412 560200 525 1116 14 30 3025 1500 1 2 702 0 02 00 2159 3097071643126142901 0020430 2 916 52010700 5 0 1013310 2125453 1498103020100813 0120 10 5726 2200000 1 4 7 05 618 202400311990 320011 5 00141 71 20 9 6 6 2 00 5 220251 595 0400 8824113 0 0 10665000943 74 1000 05201935000031200 2 111 0 0051563519869814247102 332 0 008008217 000 00 2913 6110000 01 1 58 00001291 1 0 0 1019 629 4511 0 0 4113 2700 0 0 0 206 15 022102 010000227 247 0001022 00 10 9321017 0010 0 21 2 062 00 2416 500125777612 523 167000247 227 102 0 0 2134006 71 19309 0 143 90 038500 1083014 575 50 1100 019000 340162 14 10 31 005300 00000 000 0 0 11217 0 000 143 161120 7000006009 8 5887211021 0000 32419801102 1000 1 05530 20 0677911 6 37001 01 0 100 6 1119451 2 6 1 80 37181431 1 5800532001 2 1 1 3100 0 0 00 131140 00 0 000 7 13 0 0 1 40 1 022740550 000 068301 430 613 1117700 4 0 160 3201 030140 23 1100 5 01314 8 00 03 53010683 0 5 9 7 0 063505 352 121 2 7 0 0 071 0090 1590 4278201 1 0 1 71 7373 1960 53 182332 2413 21 000 0 080 0 1 00 5 000 0 3 0 1202 10 029677 1 0 1 700 1 0000 30 13800110 01 6101800310905551 10002 015285000 0 4 410 76 11410 63 001 023 31 15 4 63 001 45 0254 70 4 01 3 351163 00581 0240 0 1 130 1928010 0 1025153 4 9 00 0028000110 0 21 300 0 000 2 0 714508 10 100 60612 0 0 060 002475050 60 81 6323 0 0 0 0 100 217 2021 98 312101610 0 7000 01192 020 0 0 00 00 0 0 1 2 0 10300 1550 10000000010 103 300 00006210 1 12127 0 0 0 0 001 0 117 888000 1240 0 0 00035 0 1 00 000 0000 5 00 33 3 Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles AM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 1 1,000 500 250 2 2 98 88 9134 6 32 640 30831 66 135 41 215 00 251 2842 10 1065 66 2 8 6 1 6 3 6318 00 00 22195 1 0 1 8 1 1 470015238 13760 0 0499314 1 36349448 0 0 0119333431870 1 3 0 00 2 6 4 18 8 256 72200 38 152 6318 26384 8 463 1016543357345339843100 11 00 3191 7 4 208 62 83 93 005106 115 171 01113556104 00527 717 53 1 0 0 00 833043415458251529 00 5 01 620 5 00491 0 34372490 254 1 1115300 08 0000 00 2342142 6263 620034 11120 0 01 325 8647545 30 49 05 00 97 106130 24154 1863 12150150 80 0000 9 21 0003 321 811 15 1114 42 00 23 00 0000 6 050 1 000 11 445410000103 350 0 004628 128 00 16 00130 4 3 78 4425 01175107 0000 0 0 00 63 8 13 0015 2715 10 1 165362680 2614759 27 0051 9 680 38 25830 1 4 7 6 2 001 300080 115615443400 318410 0189 164 74001 0 30103 010 00 00 33 7 4 00 0000080 1254441819 3866 99 5 00 3143726 0 001763271510 0 2 00 1 18 0 0 85 55 2 2 5 00 13100000001130 631801 304300 0 001 11 18213235 6 31 0 0 0 0 00 141 252 00 9448 3715 8 5 32717 1918 00 1 45 0 0011111298201800 0 0 0714200 00 0 0 26234218005 1 702228186 0000 116000 94 48 00180 3235001000 0 0 115400320000 0063 8 0 30010 51100443011111530 0 1 0 40001 3183 004 5 0 0 00 0 0 0 150 28 191811 65400 1943 1412 28 25 010 0000 1 5 001 1 10 00 1863131 183 1171049116549620201011 0000460 1 929 44004800 0 2 002924028097 1926434154100000187 0000 0 01 4650 01000 2 1 5 10 68 191500241258 33006 14 0075 0 24 00 2 5 5 5 00 3 301145 239 1100 1214311 0 0 11563001118 73 0000 10191527000001200 3 414 0 00477639241515628113010 230 1 0080034211 000 00 5321 001 2 0000 00 78 0011210 0 0 0 003 254 2140 0 0 5732 3315300 0 0 0 0312 11 10281 000000141 252 0000023 00 10 21110021 185 0 13 0 0628 00 2933 2000207301 112 1017000252 141 004 0 0 432900163 1294 1 08 00 00900 611600 502 01 2000 30000 18101 4 7 2 004200 00000 000 8 0 0 2113142 0 000 08 12140 048000001 3 4 258101013 0100 340240321771281 4001 1 48001 00 3114990 2 5 15001 01 01 650 00 0 21222 1 2 2 00 1537011 780018301 1 0 1300 0 0 480 24260 00 0 000 18 13 0 0 0 00 4 10131272 420 000 4852802 5 00 1456300 2140 5610 16000 12 1010 0 1114 7 00 03 0000251 0 2 4 9 0 0100 1 110 5 7 0 0 11 0000 280 8027300 0 0 22 100218 26 2843 1819 110 000 0 000 4 10 0 18 0000 0 0 2 0 310 0 000492 0 1 0 4 7 10 1 1 00 0 0 432 70011050 42030007102010001 0107175000 0 0 120 0 232597 020100 111 002 190103170 14 0000 00 0 16 3 8 5 481 1 22357 001 0140 1 1 1110 151900 0 00026 1 00 00211000 2 500000 10 33100 0 000 28 80102 00 000 48331 0 0 0000 00308320 00 7 210334 2 000100 00012 56 94027890 0 000 00121749700 0 00 0 110 0 1 00 34210 12000000050 00 000000 2700 0 0 0 004 0 05 20 10 9127 0 00004 8 1 0 4300 0000 0 10010 6 00 94 6 Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles PM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 1 750 375 188 31 669 72 5180 6 2 73 014 2567420 211 510 197 00 185 3120 032912 192 1 3 1 7 2 8 596 1 00 00 17226 0 1 1 4 1 1 650234527 56450 1 0660746 3 0627031203 0 0 67393347791 2 02 10 2 4 9 2 0 4 187 14400 527 34 596 1 51412 11 1 0 0 627 0173710332 7721117 672500 02 00 1032 3 1 0510 35 66 665 001229 210 229 0046610592 00510 727 140 1 1 0 00 67259774233725688 00 3 30 252 4 01071 3 015028696 669 0 9133600 1 94 0000 00 4273 4 9135 310025 1351 0 10 2255863459 06 32 81 00 114262 20246 1 596 9443670 219 0000 17 5 0011 331 240 13 1323 30 00 151 00 0001 9 504 0 000 12 475812000130 200 0 002652 814 10 90 00262 1 6 918 1541 2085101 0101 1 33 00 164 1 0 51 1091 363 76 4167047290 5347178 412 00226 1 0 0157 102 25582 0 13 11 2 5 003 1006162 11827429713 256704 20175 150 21012 2 1 2901 014 00 00 32 913 00 001006162 3058472711 5922 295 01 1235251 0 00113118703 2 1 00 1 05 0 0 87 73 4 5 3 05 5600000013261 596120 312500 3 00141 67114917 1 11 0 0 0 0 00 272 208 00 31 203 1641 213 12714 1125 00 11 36 0 0011783177720502 0 0 7015210 00 0 0 13179168221 1 0711437783 1000 415000 31 203 00670 3917000400 1 0 0252210231000 0059 3 0 050071400273114111460 0 9 2 0010 8151 007 0 0 0 00 0 0 2 721 2 112712 590200527 1016 13 33 4033 1400 1 3 602 0 02 00 1159 3087078643142123001 0000430 2 916 47010770 5 1 2013330 1114521 19789702010079 0110 5 20 6624 230000 1 8 4 07 518 232100331790 32009 5 00141 71 00 8 5 9 3 00 5 220267 616 0400 97221120 0 0 130042 96 1000 0323173700037200 2 141 0 00449703230611853802 332 0 007007117 000 00 3 2 1 5 8 139 0000 01 1 37 0001440 1 0 0 1021 669 4711 0 0 4412 2700 0 0 106 13 02294 010000208 000122 00 10 82200112 01 4 0 11 2 062 00 2216 5001406913 534 157000208 262 102 0 0 23310072 8 17321 01 194 120 03800 983012 510 70 1100 022001 310182 13 11 56 106200 00000 000 0 0 121218 0 000 194 161021 7700006109 8 3 5782212011 0200 2323001102 1000 0 05730 20 0677811 6 41001 01 0 006 1151 1 6 40 41161231 1 3700557002 0 1 2100 0 0 00 179140 00 0 000 6 13 0 0 5 30 1 022238450 000 0702032 613 2147700 4 0 170 3501 030120 34 0100 01313 9 0 2 52010725 0 6 1 8 1 062504 552 121 2 6 0 0 078 000 1684948101 2 0 1 617 313 1859 53 2156 2711 21 000 0 070 1 5 000 1 2 74 0 1203 10 0011697 0 0 1 700 1 0000 3970110 01 71010701 20012 010185000 0 5 310 075 21210 53 000203 695 5 62 01 06 0 40 4 01 3 371265 0071 0220 0 140 1729010 0 122853 6 7 00 000290001100 31 200 0 000 636221908 10 100 0 0 66211 0 0 060176 0025670480 81 8323 1 020024 2121 105 31291710 0 7700 0169102 00 0 0 00 00 0 1 7 0 9700 140 900000010 92 00 000010 1 1301 0 001 0 100 800038 0 10024 01 00 0000 0000 3 00 31 3 Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles AM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 2 750 375 188 22 99 89 9134642 740 30851 66 133 31 207 00 239 2942 001026 67 2 8 2 1 6 7 6421 00 00 22205 1 0 1 4 1 1 460015140 13770 0 0555311 1 364413348 0 0 012233339127012900 2 5 0 1 8 2 245 72500 40 151 6421 26384 8 464 1016648463345139853100 11 00 3221 7 6 208 62 85 94 006102 117 174 00113555104 00529 667 53 8 0 00 853048515453252581 00 3 01 620 5 00791 0 443109542 256 1 1114300 08 0000 00 2438132 6 253 520034 10120 0 01 3257647641 30 55 06 00 93 105125 24054 2164 12140160 80 0000 9 22 0002 321 910 12 1114 31 00 23 00 0000 6 050 1 000 11 445010000003 250 0 004526 128 00 16 00125 4 3 78 4425 01158107 0000 0 0 00 53 8 13 0015 2615 10 1 165872700 2615259 17 0061 9 577 38 25840 1 4 7 6 2 001 300081 114615448500 318510 0187 164 73001 0 25102 000 00 00 33 74 00 0000081 1150441619 39 67 95 6 00 1143526 0 002253271010 0 2 00 1 08 0 0 86 53 2 3 5 00 1390000001100 642101 304300 0 001 41 17113235 5 21 0 0 0 0 00 135 251 00 133 48 3714 8 4 32667 1916 00 4 45 0 001011888191500 0 0 0717300 00 0 0 25205218005 1 802428188 0000 116000 13348 00180 3235001000 0 0 115400320000 0054 8 0 300151000433111101430 0 10 4 0001 3173 004 5 0 0 00 0 0 0 180 12 191611 663001941 1512 29 25 010 000 1 2 001 1 10 0 2164133 1161079116541082120911 000430 1 929 43007800 0 2 0029240 534096 1625485154100000127 0000 0 01 4650 01000 2 0 7 20 68 191500241258 33006 13 0074 0 24 00 1 5 5 8 00 3 301146 242 1100 12143110 0 0 110019 73 0000 10191526000001300 3 313 0 0047959225195553411051 230 1 0080035211 000 00 4 4 2 91500000 00 68 001211 0 0 003 256 2170 0 0 5432 319800 0 0 0212 11 10121 000000135 251 000022 00 10 11110031 15 0 12 0 0612 00 2933 00020721401 122 1016000251 135 003 0 0 43300016 7 12104 1 08 00 00700 610900 505 02 2000 30000 19111 5 7 2 004100 00000 000 8 0 0 21142 0 000 08 12140 078001001 3 2 2 333101012 0100 40250322251121 4001 1 48001 00 2111990 2 2 14001 01 21 660 00 11232 1 2 3 00 1437011 680036301 0 1100 0 0 7821250 00 0 000 18 12 0 0 0 00 4 10141162 320 000 78580025 00 1356200140 5310 13000 22 1010 1214 7 0 02 0000252 0 2 5 8 0 1100 1 110 5 8 0 11 000 280 8000 0 0 2 1 8 0218 26 43 1619 113 000 0 00 4 0 36 0000 0 0 2 0 110 0 000545 0 0 0 7 6 10 0000 0 437011038020002010001 0107158000 0 0 110 2496 02010 111 002 190103 180 14 000 00 0 15 9831 0 22057 001 0140 1 1 1010 161900 0 000 26 1 00 0021100 5000100 10 28001 0 000 12 81102 01 000 53821 0 0 0000 003085290 6 29333 1 000100 00012 55 0278 0 0 000 00121800 00 110 0 1 00 1310 120000 00050 00 000000 2510 0 0 004 0 0 50320 10 9 0 00003 00 4100 0000 00010 3 00 6 Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles PM Peak Hour Select-Link Analysis - Scenario 2 750 375 188 Number ST0116 Program STREETS ESTIMATED COSTS PRIOR YEARS 2018-2019 BUDGET 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 FUTURE YEARS ESTIMATE TOTALS 9100 $11,280 $91,458 $89,360 $108,440 $300,538 9200 $116,096 $1,214,206 $454,110 $145,050 $1,929,462 9300 $1,980,000 $1,980,000 9400 $48,589 $7,751,411 $7,800,000 9500 $490,000 $490,000 $127,376 $1,305,664 $592,059 $10,474,901 $12,500,000 FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS 2018-2019 BUDGET 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 FUTURE YEARS ESTIMATE TOTALS 2201 $200,000 $200,000 2220 $15,254 $84,746 $592,059 $692,059 4301 $112,122 $108,638 $220,760 Road Maint. & Rehab. Account (RMRA) TASSAJARA ROAD REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING - FALLON ROAD TO NORTH CITY LIMIT 2018-2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Salaries & Benefits Contract Services Land/Right of Way Improvements Miscellaneous TOTAL State Gas Tax Traffic Impact Fee - Category 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project provides for the planning and preliminary engineering to define a new roadway alignment, design cross-section,right-of-way, and environmental clearance for Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City and Contra Costa County limit. The project also provides for the design and construction of a realigned Tassajara Road from Fallon Drive to the northern City limit. The design and construction of the southerly Tassajara Road segment, down to North Dublin Ranch Drive, is included in another Capital Improvement Program, project, Tassajara Road Improvements - North Dublin Ranch Drive to Quarry Lane School. The project will improve Tassajara Road to a four-lane arterial standard with bike lanes, sidewalks, landscaped median, stormwater treatment areas, and other associated street improvements. Portions of the existing roadway have been improved by adjacent development projects and this project will complete the street improvements and realign a portion of existing roadway to improve safety and achieve good circulation while adhering to the Complete Streets Policy. The roadway segment is a project within both the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Strategic Expenditure Plan (Project B-8) and the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact (Category 1) Fee Program. Design and construction of the realigned roadway will be coordinated with Contra Costa County. ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT:TBD MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS 2018-2019 BUDGET 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 FUTURE YEARS ESTIMATE TOTALS 4303 $409,263 $409,263 4306 $503,017 $2,000,000 $2,503,017 9998 $8,474,901 $8,474,901 $127,376 $1,305,664 $592,059 $10,474,901 $12,500,000 ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT TOTAL Traffic Impact Fee - Category 3 TVTD Unidentified