HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Tassajara Road Realignmentor
19 82
/ii � 111
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
February 16, 2016
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
CITY CLERK
File #600 -35
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager "
Approval of a New Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project for Tassajara
Road Realignment and Design, and Approval of Consulting Services Agreement
with Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc.
Prepared by Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the December 15, 2015 City Council meeting Staff requested the approval of a new Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) project to develop a revised street alignment for Tassajara Road
between Moller Ranch entrance north of Fallon Road to the Windemere Parkway in Contra
Costa County, north of the city limit (Attachment 1). The proposed project would also provide a
conceptual design and cross - section of Tassajara Road from North Dublin Ranch Drive to
Fallon Road. Additionally, staff requested the approval of a Consulting Services Agreement with
Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. to assist staff in completing this work. The City Council
requested that the item be brought back at a future City Council meeting and for Staff to present
the technical analysis on the needed capacity of Tassajara Road.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This phase of the proposed project, to develop a revised street alignment for Tassajara Road, is
estimated to cost $120,000. Of this amount, approximately $33,000 will be funded by Contra
Costa County, as a portion of the revised street alignment is outside the Dublin city limits. The
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program has sufficient funds to cover the remaining
estimated cost. There is no impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the Staff presentation on the needed capacity of
Tassajara Road, approve the addition of the Tassajara Road Realignment and Widening Project
to the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan, approve the Budget Change Form, and adopt the
Resolution Approving a Consulting Services Agreement with Mackay & Somps, Civil
Engineers, Incorporated for Tassajara Road Realignment and Design Project.
u' bmitte��lc
Public Works Director
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. 7.1
DESCRIPTION:
For several years, Staff has been coordinating with Contra Costa County staff regarding the
alignment of Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and Windemere
Parkway. The current road alignment and width, particularly in an S -curve segment just north of
the Dublin city limit, has contributed to various traffic accidents, including a fatal bicycle accident
in the summer of 2009. A conceptual realignment of this roadway segment, including the
removal of the S- curve, was included in the approval of the Moller Ranch project in late 2012.
Because the roadway segment spans between two jurisdictions, the City of Dublin and Contra
Costa County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in September 2014, which
includes the initial preliminary roadway design, a study of the ultimate traffic capacity needs, and
the cost share for each jurisdiction (Attachment 2).
In addition to coordination with Contra Costa County, Staff also worked with the City of San
Ramon and the Town of Danville regarding the ultimate traffic capacity needs on Tassajara
Road /Camino Tassajara. Coordination between the four jurisdictions was necessary due to the
many planning documents related to the ultimate capacity of Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara
and associated mitigation fee programs. Such documents and programs include, but are not
limited to, the City of Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee, and the Contra Costa County General Plan. Additionally, some of the
planning documents rely on traffic analyses that were conducted prior to the passage of the
Measure L in Contra Costa County in 2006. Measure L established the urban growth limit
reducing the potential of development in the Tassajara Valley, and therefore reducing ultimate
traffic levels that were assumed in the planning documents. In fact, much of the reason that
each of the four agencies agree that an ultimate four -lane configuration can meet the capacity
needs of Tassajara Road in the future can be attributed to the fact that Tassajara Valley will not
be developed.
As per the provisions of the MOU, Staff commissioned a traffic study (Attachment 3) to identify
the ultimate roadway capacity needs for Tassajara Road. Before initiating the study, the study
scope was reviewed by Contra Costa County, the City of San Ramon, and the Town of Danville
staff. The study used the current regional traffic model to evaluate the congestion level at
intersections, and the travel time along the roadway at full build -out of the region by 2040. The
traffic analysis concluded that there are no benefits to providing a six -lane street (three lanes in
each direction) north of North Dublin Ranch Drive, and that a four -lane section (two lanes in
each direction) would be adequate to accommodate future traffic volumes associated with the
planned growth in the region. Staff at each of the mentioned jurisdictions concurs with the
recommendations made and the analysis performed.
As discussed in the MOU, the proposed phase of the project will develop an alignment and
preliminary design for the ultimate configuration of Tassajara Road, with four lanes from North
Dublin Ranch Drive to the northerly City limit and to Windemere Parkway in Contra Costa
County (Attachment 4). The alignment and preliminary design will also address the safety
concerns near the City of Dublin /Contra Costa County jurisdictional boundary by reducing the
severity of the horizontal curvature (s- curve) of the roadway. Once completed, the preliminary
design will serve to support revisions to the City of Dublin's General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee. The study will also support the
revision to Contra Costa County's General Plan Amendment. Future phases of the project will
include preliminary engineering, right -of -way, environmental review, and construction.
Page 2 of 3
The preliminary design work is anticipated to be complete in the fall of 2016. Once this work is
completed, Staff will bring to the City Council an agenda item recommending adoption of a new
precise alignment for the roadway. In coordination with the City of Dublin, Contra Costa County
staff is proceeding with reducing the number of lanes on Camino Tassajara along the roadway
segment in their County jurisdiction. The first step before going to their County Board of
Supervisors is to gain concurrence from the Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee (DVOC).
The DVOC is made up of members from four agencies which include Contra Costa County, the
Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, and the Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA).
Attachment 5 is the Staff Report that was presented to the DVOC on November 24, 2015.
Contra Costa County staff has indicated that it has received support from the DVOC on reducing
the number of lanes from six to four. Contra Costa County staff is now planning to bring this item
to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for a General Plan Amendment showing
Camino Tassajara having an ultimate lane configuration of four instead of the original six.
Proposed Project Consultant:
This project will include various street design elements, including field survey, right -of -way
review and description, utility conflict evaluation, assessment of access points for new and
future development sites, geological and archeological assessment, planning level
environmental analysis, and cost estimates. Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. (Mackay &
Somps) has been involved in several design projects as part of the private development along
Tassajara Road in this area, and has developed a substantial amount of data and information
related to many of the above - mentioned project elements. Staff believes that Mackay & Somps
has the most design knowledge of this location and would provide the most comprehensive
preliminary design of Tassajara Road. Additionally, Mackay & Somps has provided similar
consultant services to the City in the past and has performed well.
Staff is requesting the approval of an agreement with Mackay & Somps to provide technical and
preliminary design support on this project, at a not -to- exceed fee of $115,750. The Consulting
Services Agreement, which outlines the scope of work and fee schedule, is shown as Exhibit A
to the Resolution.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. December 15, 2015 Staff Report (no attachments)
2. MOU between Contra Costa County and City of Dublin for the
Camino Tassajara / Tassajara Road Realignment Project (Initial
Preliminary Design Phase)
3. Tassajara Road / Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis, Final Report
4. Tassajara Road Capacity at Build -Out
5. Contra Costa County Staff Report to the Dougherty Valley Oversight
Committee, November 24, 2015
6. Budget Change Form
7. Resolution Approving an Agreement with MacKay & Somps, Civil
Engineers, Incorporated for Tassajara Road Realignment and
Design Project; and Consulting Services Agreement Between the
City of Dublin and MacKay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Incorporated,
with Exhibit A: MacKay & Somps Proposal
Page 3 of 3
Off'' LDI)U���
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
December 15, 2015
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
CITY CLERK
File #600 -35
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
Approval of a New Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project for Tassajara
Road Realignment and Design, and Approval of Consultant Service Agreement
with Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc.
Prepared by Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider a new CIP Project to develop a revised roadway alignment for
Tassajara Road between the Moller Ranch entrance north of Fallon Road to the City of Dublin's
jurisdictional boundary at the Alameda /Contra Costa County limit. This project will also provide a
conceptual design and cross - section of the roadway from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the City's
northerly limit. As Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. has in -depth knowledge about various
aspects of this project due to their experience with several development projects along
Tassajara Road, Staff believes it will be the most appropriate firm to prepare the preliminary
design.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This phase of the proposed CIP project is estimated to cost $115,750. Out of this amount,
approximately $32,808 will be funded by Contra Costa County as their share of the work. The
Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program has sufficient funds to cover the remainder of the
cost. There is no impact to the General Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve the addition of the Tassajara Road
Realignment and Design Project to the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP No. st0116);
2) Approve the Budget Change Form; and 3) Adopt the Resolution Approving a Consultant
Service Agreement with Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. for Providing Technical
Assistance on the Tassajara Road Realignment and Design Project.
t.
/�56bmitted By
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION:
Reviewed By
Assistant City Manager
City of Dublin staff, in coordination with Contra Costa County, City of San Ramon, and Town of
Danville staff, recently conducted a traffic study to reassess the recommended number of lanes
Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. 4.4
along Tassajara /Camino Tassajara Road in various planning documents. The study used a
current regional traffic model to evaluate the congestion level at intersections and the travel time
along the roadway at full build -out of the region by 2040. The traffic analysis concluded that
there are no benefits to providing a six -lane street (three lanes in each direction) north of North
Dublin Ranch Drive, and that a four -lane section (two lanes in each direction) would be
adequate to accommodate future traffic volumes associated with the planned growth in the
region. Staff at each of the mentioned jurisdictions concurs with the recommendations made
and the analysis performed.
The proposed capital improvement project will develop an alignment and preliminary design for
ultimate configuration of Tassajara Road with four lanes from North Dublin Ranch Drive to the
northerly City limit at Contra Costa County (Attachment 1). The alignment design will also
address the safety concerns near the Contra Costa County jurisdictional boundary by reducing
the severity of horizontal curvature (s- curve) of the roadway.
The preliminary design work is anticipated to begin and end in the current fiscal year. Once this
preliminary design work is completed, Staff will bring to the City Council an agenda item
recommending adoption of a new precise alignment for the roadway..
Proposed Project Consultant:
This CIP project will include various street design elements, including field survey, Right Of Way
description, utility conflict evaluation, assessment of access points for new and future
development sites, geological and archeological assessment, planning level environmental
analysis, and cost estimates. Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. (Mackay & Somps) has
been involved in several design projects as part of the private development along Tassajara
Road in this area and has developed a substantial amount of data and information related to
many of the above mentioned project elements. Staff believes that Mackay & Somps have the
most local design knowledge at this location and would provide the most comprehensive
preliminary design of Tassajara Road at this location. Additionally, Mackay & Somps has
provided similar consultant services to the City in the past and has performed well.
Staff requests the approval of a consulting services agreement with Mackay & Somps to provide
technical and preliminary design support on this project. Staff negotiated a scope and fee for
these services not to exceed $115,750. The Consultant Services Agreement, which outlines the
scope of work and fee schedule, is shown as Exhibit A to the Resolution.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Copy of Staff Report sent to Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map
2. Budget Change Form for the Tassajara Road Realignment and
Design Project
3. Resolution Approving an Agreement with Mackay & Somps, Civil
Engineers, Inc., for Tassajara Road Realignment and Design
Project.
4. Exhibit A to Resolution — Consultant Services Agreement with
Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc.
5. Consultant Services Agreement Signature Page
6. Exhibit A and B to Consultant Services Agreement
Page 2of2
1 . The Camino Tassajara / Tassajara Road Realignment Project is a project to realign and
widen, Camino Tassajara within unincorporated Contra Costa County, and Tassajara Road
within the City of Dublin at the Contra Costa County/Alameda County Line, between
Windemere Parkway and Fallon Road, shown in FIGURE 1 attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference (the "PROJECT").
2. COUNTY and CITY general plans both reflect ultimate six lane configurations along their
respective roadways, Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Road (together, the "ROADWAY"),
within the PROJECT limits.
3. COUNTY and CITY entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement,, dated June 1, 2000
(the "DUBLIN-CONTRA COSTA FEE JEPA") pertaining to the payment of traffic mitigation
fees in connection with housing developments in COUNTY and CITY. The DUBLIN-
CONTRA COSTA FEE JEPA provides that the traffic mitigation fees collected by COUNITY
and paid to CITY shall be used to fund road improvement projects, including funding for
improving the ROADWAY.
4, On or about August 6, 1996, COUNTY, the City of San Ramon, and the Town of Danville
entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (the "SOUTHERN CONTRA COSTA
FEE JEPA") pertaining to traffic mitigation for housing developments in the southern portion
of Contra Costa County, including the PROJECT. The SOUTHERN CONTRA COSTA FEE
JEPA sets aside funding for road improvement projects, including the PROJECT.
5. CITY adopted Ordinance No. 21-04 on August 3, 2004, establishing the ultimate right-of-
way lines for Tassajara Road and Fallon Road in the CITY,
6. COUNTY has reviewed the alignment of Camino Tassajara and recommends improvements
to realign the ROADWAY at the COUNTY Line.
7. COUNTY and CITY have been coordinating regarding the realignment of the ROADWAY,
and agree that the ROADWAY will generally follow the horizontal alignment depicted in
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 for the Moller Ranch Project, approved by CITY on
December 18, 2012, and attached! to CITY Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-45,
adopted on November 27, 2012.
8. The parties intend to define herein the understanding by which COUNTY and CITY are to
implement the initial preliiminary design phase of the PROJECT.
UN a
Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, CITY and COUNTY agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE, The purpose of this MOU is to set forth the parties' goals and expectations with
respect to implementing the initial preliminary design phase of the PROJECT. This MOU
shall only be construed to create the specific rights and obligation set forth herein, and is riot
intended, and shall not be construed, to create any rights or obligations beyond those that
do not otherwise exist under the law.
21, TRAFFIC STUDY. CITY will conduct a traffic study for the PROJECT to determine the
ultimate capacity of the ROADWAY within the COUNTY and the CITY. The scope and fee
for the traffic study will be approved by COUNTY prior to CITY's commencement of the
study. The study will be conducted to the satisfaction of COUNTY, in accordance with
COUNTY' standards and requirements within the jurisdictional boundaries of COUNTY.
3. INITIAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN. CITY will complete the initial preliminary design for the
PROJECT within the COUNTY and the CITY. The; initial preliminary design of the
PROJECT will determine the preferred horizontal and vertical ROADWAY alignment,
generate a right-of-way base map, and develop a planning level cost estimate., Al�l
engineering and design work shall be performed to the satisfaction of COUNTY, in
accordance with COUNTY standards and requiirements within the jurisdictional boundaries
of COUNTY.
4. INVOICING AND PAYMENT. CITY will invoice COUNTY for reimbursement of CITY's costs
incurred in performing the traffic study and initial preliminary design phase tasks under this
MOU no less than quarterly.
(a) COUNTY will reimburse CITY thirty-six percent (' 6 %) of the cost of the PROJECT traffic
study no later than 30 days, after receipt of an invoice from CITY.,
(b) COUNTY will reimburse CITY fifty-four percent (54%) of the cost of the initial preliminary
design of the PROJECT no later than 30 days after receipt of an invoice from CITY,
5. FUTURE PROJECT PHASES. CITY and COUNTY agree to seek funding for future
PROJECT phases, including,, but not limited to preliminary engineering, right -of -way, and
construction phases. At the time CITY and COUNTY intend to proceed with future
PROJECT phases, CITY and! COUNTY shall enter into an agreement for future PROJECT'
phases.
(a) Nothing in this MOU is intended to affect the legal liability of any party by imposing any
standard of care, with respect to the work performed hereunder, different from the
standard of care imposed by law.
(b) CITY shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify COUNTY, and its officers, agents and
employees, against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability
related to or arising out of CITY's performance of this MOU, except for liability arising out
of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of COUNTY, or its officers, agents or
employees.
(c) COUNTY shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify CITY, and its officers, agents and
employees, against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses, or liability
related to or arising out of COUNTY's performance of this MOU', except for liability
arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY, or its officers, agents or
employees.
(d) CITY will ensure that each contract it enters into with a consultant or contractor for work
on the PROJECT requires the contractor or consultant to defend, field harmless, and
indemnify COUNTY, and its officers, agents and employees, against any and all claims,
demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability related to or arising Out of the
contractor's or consultant's work on the PROJECT, except for liability arising out of the
sole negligence or willful misconduct Of COUNTY, or its officers, agents or employees.
IM 0
8, MOU MODIFICATION. This MOU shall be subject to modification only with the written
consent of the legislative bodies of each party hereto. No party shall unreasonably withhold
its consent to modification for the implementation and accomplishment of the overall
purpose for which this MOU is made.
9. ACCOUNTABILITY. The parties shall provide strict accountability of any and all funds and
shall report to each other all receipts and disbursements,.
10. USE OF FUNDS,, Funds contributed for the PROJECT shall be used solely for the
PROJECT.
11. MOU CONSTRUCTION. The section headings and captions of this MOU are, and the
arrangement of thus instrument is, for the sole convenience of the parties to this MOU. The
section headings, captions and arrangement of this instrument do not in any way affect,
limit, amplify or modify the terms and provisions of this MOU.
12. ENTIRE MOU. This, MOU contains the entire understanding of the parties relating to the
subject matter of this MOU. No promise, representation, warranty or covenant not included
in this MOU has been or is relied upon by any party.
13. COUNTERPARTS, This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original with all counterparts
constituting but one and the same instrument. The execution of this MOU will not become
effective untiil counterparts have been executed' by both parties. Faxed signatures on this
MOU or any notice, consent, or amendment required under this MO,U are binding.
14. NOTICES. All correspondence regarding this MOU, including invoices, payments, and
notices shall be directed to the following persons at the following addresses and facsimile
numbers, which may be changed by written notice from one party to the other:
COUNTY: CITY:
Julia Bueren, Public Works Director Gary HUisingh, Public Works Director
255 Glacier *rive 1010 Civic Plaza
Martinez, CA 94553-4825 Dublin, CA 94568
Fax: (925) 313-2333 Fax: (925) 8;33-6628
15, GOVERNING LAW-. ,-VENLJIE. This MOU will be governed and construed in accordance with
California law. The venue of any litigation arising, Out Of this MOO will be Contra Costa
County.
IR ITI-MESS 'TTAEREOF, the parties have each executed this MOU as of' the date first
c t forth above.
By:
Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director
Wryr,10-1, r.
Sharon L. Anderson
County Counsel
0
I Z
REMPTAKIRM
2
Bv: Y/
firlsitbofier L. Foss, City Manager
ttorney
/91y,
GAtranseng\Prqjeets\Cam "Cass Safety Imp - Windemere Pkwy to Coun(y L,iiic\AgreciiietilskDtibliii-Comity Initial Prelim Design
MOU — County 7-14-14 Version.doc
FIG1,RE I
CAMINO TASSAJARA/TASSAJARA ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT
q#
yk '(0
D,7,inville
mm
San RAmon
Hash pa Ranch,
Regionril
Op t"'411 Splice
Open spwe
faf"&aj Ara
3
�,qus
llr(�ject I'mcation
Sari Romon
'Golf CW)
Cleek
Ca ruin P v k.,, Regional Pailk
Dublin . . ........... ...
Y, VON Mum", jrt ''Bread, jr, FWy
Or
ri
Asco
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN CONTRA cosTA COUNTY AND CITY OF DUBLIN
T-IF T
IL—PID Irri
ig, I Nunn riagn it'll Imatrasig6g [twou I rggaw
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, dated as of the 16th day of September,
2014 (this "MOU"), is entered into by Contra Costa County, a political subdivision of the State of
California ("COUNTY") and the City of Dublin, California ("CITY"),
1. The Camino Tassajara / Tassajara Road Realignment Project is a project to realign and
widen Camino Tassajara within unincorporated Contra Costa County, and Tassajara Road
within the City of Dublin at the Contra Costa County/Alameda County Line, between
Windemere Parkway and Fallon Road, shown in FIGURE 1 attached hereto and!
incorporated herein by reference (the "PROJECT").
2. COUNTY and CITY general plans both reflect ultimate six lane configurations along their
respective roadways, Camino Tassajara and Tassajara Road (together, the "ROADWAY"),
within the PROJECT limits.
3, COUNTY and CITY entered Into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated June 1, 2000
(the "DUBLIN-CONTRA COSTA FEE JEPA ") pertaining to the payment of traffic mitigation
fees In connection with housing developments in COUNTY and CITY, The DUBLIN-
CONTRA COSTA FEE JEPA provides that the traffic mitigation fees collected by COUNTY
and paid to CITY shall be used to fund road improvement projects, including funding for
improving the ROADWAY.
4. On or about August 6, 1996, COUNTY, the City of San Ramon, and the Town of Danville
entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers, Agreement (the "SOUTHERN CONTRA COSTA
FEE JEPA") pertaining to traffic mitigation for housing developments in the southern, portion
of Contra Costa County, including the PROJECT, The SOUTHERN CONTRA COSTA FEE
JEPA sets aside funding for road improvement projects, including the PROJECT.
5. CITY adopted Ordinance No. 21-04 on August 3, 2004, establishing the ultimate right-of-
way lines for Tassajara Road and Fallon Road In the CITY.
6. COUNTY has reviewed the alignment of Camino Tassajara and recommends improvements
to realign the ROADWAY at the COUNTY Line,
7. COUNTY and CITY have been coordinating regarding the realignment of the ROADWAY,
and agree that the ROADWAY will generally follow the horizontal alignment depicted in
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8102 for the Moller Ranch Project, approved by CITY on
December 18, 2012, and attached to CITY Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-45,
adopted on November 27, 2012.
8. The parties intend to define herein the understanding by which COUNTY and CITY are to
implement the initial preliminary design phase of the PROJECT.
Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, CITY and COUNTY agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this MOU is to set forth the parties' goals and expectations with
respect to implementing the initial preliminary design phase of the PROJECT. This MOU
shall only be construed to create, the specific rights and obligation set forth herein, and is not
intended, and shall not be construed, to create any rights or obligations beyond those that
do not otherwise exist under the law.
2. TRAFFIC STUDY. CITY will conduct a traffic study for the PROJECT to determine the
ultimate capacity of the ROADWAY within the COUNTY and the CITY. The scope and' fee
for the traffic study will be approved by COUNTY prior to CITY's commencement of the
Study. The study will be conducted to the satisfaction, of COUNTY, in accordance with
COUNTY standards and requirements within the jurisdictional boundaries of COUNTY.
INITIAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN. CITY will complete the initial preliminary design for the
PROJECT within the COUNTY and the CITY. The initial preliminary design of the
PROJECT will determine the preferred horizontal and vertical ROADWAY alignment,
generate a right-of-way base map, and develop a planning level cost estimate. All,
engineering and design work shall be performed to the satisfaction of COUNTY, in
accordance with COUNTY standards and requirements within the jurisdictional boundaries
of COUNTY.
4. INVOICING AND PAYMENT. CITY will invoice COUNTY for reimbursement of CITY's costs
incurred in performing the traffic Study and initial preliminary design phase tasks under this
MOU no less than quarterly.
(a) COUNTY will reimburse CITY thirty-six percent (36%) of the cost of the PROJECT traffic
study no later than 30 days after receipt of an invoice from CITY,
(b) COUNTY will reimburse CITY fifty-four percent (54%) of the cost of the initial preliminary
design of the PROJECT no later than 30 days after receipt of an invoice from CITY.
FUTURE PROJECT PHASES. CITY and COUNTY agree to seek funding for future
PROJECT phases, including, but not limited to preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and
construction phases. At the time CITY and COUNTY intend to proceed with future
PROJECT phases, CITY and COUNTY shall enter into an agreement for future PROJECT
phases.
MOMMONIMMIN
(a) Nothing in this MOU is intended to affect the legal liability of any party by imposing any
standard of care, with respect to the work performed hereunder, different from the
standard of care imposed by law.
(b) CITY shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify COUNTY, and its officers, agents and
employees, against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability
related to or arising Out Of CITY's performance, of this MOU, except for liability arising out
of the sole negligence or Willful misconduct of COUNTY, or its officers, agents or
employees.
(c) COUNTY shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify CITY, and its officers, agents and
employees, against any and all claims, dernands, damages, costs, expenses or liability
related to or arising Out of COUNTY's performance of this MOU, except for liability
arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY, or its officers, agents or
employees.
(d) CITY will ensure that each contract it enters into with a consultant or contractor for work
on the PROJECT requires the contractor or consultant to defend, hold harmless, and
inderrinify COUNTY, and its officers, agents and employees, against any and all claims,
demands, darnages, costs, expenses or liability related to or arising out of the
contractor's or consultant's work on the PROJECT, except for liability arising out of the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of COUNTY, or its officers, agents or employees.
7. TERM OF MOU. This MOU will expire upon the completion of the tasks set forth in Sections
2, 3 and 4 of the UNDERSTANDING section of this MOU.
8, MOU MODIFICATION. This MOU shall be Subject to modification only with the written
consent of the legislative bodies of each party hereto. No party shall unreasonably withhold
its consent to modification for the implementation and accomplishment of the overall
purpose for which this MOU is made,
9. ACCOUNTABILITY. The parties shall provide strict accountability of any and all funds and
shall report to each other all receipts and disbursements.
10. USE OF FUNDS. Funds contributed for the PROJECT shall be used solely for the
PROJECT.
11. MOU CONSTRUCTION. The section headings and captions of this MOU are, and the
arrangement of this instrument is, for the sole convenience of the parties to this MOU. The
section headings, captions and arrangement of this instrument do not in any way affect,
limit, amplify or modify the terms and provisions of this MOU.
12. ENTIRE MOU. This MOU contains the entire understanding of the parties relating to the
subject matter of this MOU. No prornise, representation, warranty or covenant not included
in this MOU has been or is relied upon by any party.
13. COUNTERPARTS. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original with all counterparts
constituting but one and the same instrument. The execution of this MOU will not become
effective until Counterparts have been executed by both parties. Faxed signatures on this
MOU or any notice, consent, or amendment required Linder this MOU are binding.
14. NOTICES. All correspondence regarding this MOU, including invoices, payments, and
notices shall be directed to the following persons at the following addresses and facsimile
numbers, which may be changed by written notice from one party to the other:
COUNTY: CITY:
Julia Bueren, Public Works Director Gary HUiSingh, Public Works Director
255 Glacier Drive 100 Civic Plaza
Martinez, CA 94553-482�5 Dublin, CA 94568
Fax: (925) 313-2333 Fax: (925) 833-6628
15. GOVERNING LAW;_1LENUE. This MOU will be governed and construed in accordance with
California law. The venue of any litigation arising out of this MOU will be Contra Costa
County,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each executed this MOU as of the date first
.•r M-
Bueren, Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sharon L. Anderson
County Counsel
By:—
Name: 4- 0
Deputy County Counsel
CITY OF DUBLIN:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
LIN
City Attorney
GA(ranseng\Prqjects\Cam Tess Safety Imp - Windemere Pkwy to County Line\Agrcea-netits\Dubliii-County Initial Prelim Design
MOU — County 7-14-14 Vcrsion,doc
FIGURE 1
CAMINO TASSAJARAITASSAIARA ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT
Da aw
y y�,
+r '
1 1 "fir
°J i
116rl %�nNe�e�
Wel
.rrrycrrm�rr*e„
l % Sn 11 y Dff / y �ry
Ile
/.
U -
re AVE
Iii fN tlq
re9f Atll1 � +°
i
Bishop 0
Open Spnc6
Refg�orlal Part,
Can Pwks
C LIk', 00 - �
1
i
w
i�me (r
/ �j " / �';
j�� �
Asco
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis
Final Report
1970 Broadway, Suite 740
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 763 -2061
March 19, 2015
Document Description
Version Control
Version
Number
Date
Client
City of Dublin
DKS Project Number
14112 -001
Project Name
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
Related Task/ WBS Number
N/A
Document Name
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis Draft Report
File Path
p: \p \14 \14112 -001 city of dublin on -call tassajara rd \07 deliverables \camino
tassajara capacity analysis draft technical report.docx
Date Document Issued
March 19, 2015
Version Control
Version
Number
Date
Description of Change
Author
0 -1
11/18/2014
Initial Document
JMP
0 -2
11/19/2014
Reviewed and updated
JMP
0 -3
11/21/2014
Draft Report
JMP
0 -4
2/18/2015
Updated with comments from City of Dublin
JMP /DCM
1 -0
3/19/2015
Final Report
JMP /DCM
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara i March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Table of CoIntents
TABLEOF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. ............................... I
APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... ............................... II
LISTOF FIGURES ................................................................................................... ............................... III
LISTOF TABLES .................................................................................................... ............................... III
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .......................................................................................... ............................... 1
STUDYAPPROACH ....................................................................................................... ..............................1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................... ..............................2
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ ............................... 5
EXISTING ROADWAY SETTING ................................................................................ ..............................6
STUDYINTERSECTIONS ................................................................................................ ..............................6
STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS ..................................................................................... ..............................6
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... ..............................8
STUDY SCENARIOS ...................................................................................................... ............................... 8
Scenario #1— Four -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara ............... ............................... 8
Scenario #2 — Six -lane Capacity on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara .................. ............................... 8
ModelAdjustments ................................................................................................ ............................... 8
LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGIES AND PARAMETERS ........................................... ..............................9
SignalizedIntersections .......................................................................................... ............................... 9
RoadwaySegments ................................................................................................. .............................10
CCTA TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL ................................................................................. .............................11
ROADWAY SEGMENT VOLUME FORECAST METHODOLOGY ..................................... .............................11
INTERSECTION VOLUME FORECAST METHODOLOGY ................................................ .............................12
CCTA TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL REVIEW ................................................................... .............................12
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA .................................................................................. .............................13
Contra Costa County and Tri- Valley Transportation Council .................................. .............................13
Cityof Dublin .......................................................................................................... .............................13
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara i March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Townof Danville ..................................................................................................... .............................14
Caltrans................................................................................................................... .............................14
EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ ............................... 14
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS ..................................... .............................14
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) .. .............................18
ROADWAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ........ .............................19
FUTURE CUMULATIVE (2040) CONDITIONS ......................................................... ............................... 20
2040 LAND USE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... .............................20
2040 SELECT -LINK ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... .............................20
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (CUMULATIVE 2040 CONDITIONS) ...............24
ROADWAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS (CUMULATIVE 2040 CONDITIONS) .....................29
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. ............................... 31
STUDYPARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................... ............................... 32
AppeInAll,ces
APPENDIX A INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX C MODEL LINK VOLUMES
APPENDIX D LANE ASSUMPTIONS
APPENDIX E SELECT -LINK ANALYSIS
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara ii March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
List t: ii. Mires
Figure1 -
Study Area ...................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Figure 2 -
Lane Configurations ..................................................................................... ...............................
15
Figure 3 -
Existing Condition Traffic Volumes .............................................................. ...............................
16
Figure 4 -
Existing Condition Link Volumes .................................................................. ...............................
17
Figure 5 -
4 -Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Link Volumes ....................................... ...............................
22
Figure 6 -
6 -Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Link Volumes ....................................... ...............................
23
Figure 7 -
4 -Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Traffic Volumes ................................... ...............................
27
Figure 8 -
6 -Lane Cumulative 2040 Condition Traffic Volumes ................................... ...............................
28
List of
Tables
Table 1—
Study Intersections and Jurisdiction ............................................................... ...............................
3
Table 2 —
List of Deficient Intersections under Future 2040 Traffic Conditions ............ ...............................
4
Table 3 —
Signalized Intersection LOS Thresholds and Definitions ................................ ...............................
9
Table 4 —
Roadway Segment LOS Thresholds and Definitions ..................................... ...............................
10
Table 5 —
Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service ......................................... ...............................
18
Table 6 —
Existing Condition Roadway Segment Level of Service ................................ ...............................
19
Table 7 —
2040 Select -Link Analysis Volumes ............................................................... ...............................
21
Table 8 —
Cumulative 2040 Conditions Intersection Level of Service — AM Peak Hour ..............................
24
Table 9 —
Cumulative 2040 Conditions Intersection Level of Service — PM Peak Hour ..............................
25
Table 10
— Cumulative 2040 Conditions Roadway Segment Level of Service ............. ...............................
30
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara iii March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Executive SuIrturnary
The City of Dublin and Contra Costa County are planning to improve transportation facilities along the
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Road corridor to meet future multi -modal transportation needs. It is a
Route of Regional Significance in the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan and it is expected that
future growth in traffic along the study roadway will result primarily from planned residential
developments in the proximate region. The purpose of this study was to determine the number of travel
lanes and intersection configuration needed to operate Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara to meet the
standards of Contra Costa County, the City of Dublin, the City of Danville, the City of San Ramon and the
Tri Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan'. The study roadway segment of Tassajara Road/ Camino
Tassajara is from Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the
Town of Danville in Contra Costa County. This study was conducted in collaboration with City of Dublin
staff, Alameda County staff, San Ramon and Danville staff, and Contra Costa County and Contra Costa
County Transportation Authority staff.
Study Approach
Key intersections and roadway segments in the study area were selected in consultation with Cities of
Dublin, Danville and San Ramon, and Contra Costa County staff. The objective of the study was to
determine if two or three travel lanes per direction are needed on Tasssajara Road /Camino Tassajara to
operate the roadway acceptably under future (2040) traffic conditions. Two traffic scenarios were studied
to evaluate the number of lanes needed to meet the relevant standards and to determine the potential
traffic impact on local roadways in the Tri - Valley area from possible traffic diversions described as follows:
Scenario #1— Four -lane Capacity on Tassaiara Road /Camino Tassaiara
With an assumed capacity of four lanes on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from Gleason Drive in the
City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the Town of Danville in Contra Costa County,
the study assessed whether relevant standards would be met and whether traffic to /from 1 -580 would be
expected to divert to use local roadways such as El Charro Road /Fallon Road, Isabel Avenue, Portola
Avenue, Collier Canyon Road, and North Livermore Road to access Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Road
via Highland Road. While the majority of Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara was modeled with four lanes,
six lanes were assumed south of Dublin Boulevard along Tassajara Road consistent with the number of
existing travel lanes along the roadway segment.
Scenario #2 — Six -lane Capacity on Tassaiara Road /Camino Tassaiara
With an assumed capacity of six lanes on Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara, the study assessed
whether relevant standards would be met and whether some traffic would use this roadway as a link
between 1 -580 and 1 -680 to avoid congestion on 1 -580 and 1 -680. It was determined from the travel
demand forecast and LOS analysis that widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is
expected to attract additional traffic of approximately 100 vehicles per hour each during both the AM and
1 Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (1994)
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 1 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
PM. This is the traffic that would have otherwise used other arterials such as Dougherty Road, Fallon
Road, Windemere Parkway and Bollinger Canyon Road, Airway Parkway and 1 -680 to and from job rich
areas south of Contra Costa County. The shift in traffic from the various listed arterials is relatively
insignificant (less than 1 percent) and does not affect the overall travel distribution pattern in the study
area. It is also not expected to significantly impact other intersections and roadway segments along
arterials in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. However, a slight shift in traffic from Dougherty
Road is expected to relieve traffic congestion along Dougherty Road and particularly at the critical
Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection.
The study roadway segments and intersections were analyzed under existing and cumulative (future 2040)
traffic conditions. The existing conditions were analyzed using recent traffic data from multiple sources,
including the Mollar Ranch Traffic Impact Study and the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation /Action Plan.
The CCTA countywide travel demand model was used to forecast the cumulative 2040 traffic volumes
because it produced a more conservative traffic forecast than the Dublin travel demand model and the
Alameda countywide travel demand model. The detailed discussion on the reason for selecting the CCTA
travel demand model is included in the Analysis Methodology section of this report. Furthermore, a select -
link analysis was conducted to determine travel patterns and the extent of traffic diversion in the study
area that may result from widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four travel lanes to six travel
lanes. The intersection and roadway segment level of service analysis were conducted using the Highway
Capacity Manual analysis methodology.
Summary if IlllIe sults
This is an investigative study to determine the number of travel lanes needed to operate Tassajara
Road /Camino Tassajara acceptably according to established and applicable significance criteria. The
analysis included level of service analysis for 12 intersections and six (6) roadway segments within the
study area as listed in Table 1.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 2 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
UIFIII,�ia :IIL ..... SUS (� �!iv Illumt,iii� !ursectioii s aiind J�, iiribsdiiii:,tioiim
No
Intersection Name
Ownership
Signal Operator
Applicable
LOS
Standard
1
Santa Rita Rd /1 -580 EB off -ramp
Caltrans
City of Pleasanton
D
2
Santa Rita Rd /Tassajara Rd /1 -580 WB off -ramp
Caltrans
City of Pleasanton
D
3
Tassajara Rd /Dublin Blvd
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
4
Tassajara Rd /Gleason Dr
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
5
Fallon Rd /Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Rd
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
6
Camino Tassajara /Highland Rd
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County
C
7
El Charro Rd /1 -580 EB off -ramp
Caltrans
Caltrans
D
8
El Charro Rd /Fallon Rd /1 -580 WB ramps
Caltrans
Caltrans
D
9
Fallon Rd /Dublin Blvd
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
10
Fallon Rd /Silvers Ranch Dr
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
D
11
Camino Tassajara /Windemere Pkwy
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County
C
12
Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Rd
Town of Danville
Town of Danville
D
Study Roadway Segments
The applicable level of services standard for Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara, a regional route of
significance is LOS E.
1. Tassajara Road between Gleason Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive
2. Tassajara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive to Fallon Road
3. Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from Fallon Road to Windemere Parkway
4. Camino Tassajara from Windemere Parkway to Lusitano Street
5. Camino Tassajara from Lusitano Street to Crow Canyon Road; and
6. Camino Tassajara from Crow Canyon Road to Sycamore Valley Road
Assumption
For the purpose of the analysis, it was assumed that the signalized study intersections will be proactively
optimized by the various agencies under cumulative (future 2040) traffic conditions. This provides a
consistent basis to assess the impact of the two study scenarios.
Level of Service Analysis (Existing Traffic Conditions)
Intersections LOS Results — Based on the LOS results under Existing Conditions, nine of the 12 study
intersections currently operate acceptably according to applicable LOS standards during AM and PM peak
hours. The Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection operates acceptably at LOS C during the AM peak
hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin standard during the PM peak hour. The
Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Road intersection operates acceptably at LOS D during the PM
peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS F under the City of Dublin standard during the AM peak hour.
The Camino Tassajara /Highland Road intersection operates unacceptably at LOS E under the Contra Costa
County General Plan standard during the AM peak hour and operates acceptably at LOS C during the PM
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 3 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
peak hour. Only the intersection of Fallon Rd /Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Rd during the AM peak hour
operates worse than the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E standard.
Roadway LOS Results — Under Existing Conditions, all study roadway segments operate at LOS C or better
during AM and PM peak hours in both the northbound and southbound directions. Generally, speeds are
faster during the AM peak hour.
Level of Service Analvsis (Cumulative /Future 2040 Traffic Conditions
Intersections LOS Results — Under Cumulative 2040 Conditions, three (3) of the 12 study intersections
located under the City of Dublin jurisdiction are expected to operate unacceptably under either the AM
peak hour or PM peak hour or both according to the City of Dublin significant impact criteria. The three
intersections expected to operate unacceptably are listed in Table 2.
TaIIL:III��ie 2 11 orst of III u�ef'ioc iieint Illintl�eirsi�ectiuourms uin:leir 1111 :ut�uiri�i,! N W) Traffic f°ourmditiiourms
Deficient Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Applicable
LOS
Standard
( #1) 4 -Lane
( #2) 6 -Lane
( #1) 4 -Lane
( #2) 6 -Lane
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Tassajara Rd and Dublin Blvd
39.9
D
40.2
D
96.9
F
136.5
F
D
Tassajara Rd and Gleason Dr
97.8
F
90.4
F
73.9
E
101.5
F
D
Fallon Rd and Dublin Blvd
59.5 1
E
52.1
D
168.1
1 F
188
F
D
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
c. Analysis performed using Synchro 8.0 HCM 2000 based on limitations in HCM 2010
analysis
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
During the AM peak hour, the Tassajara Road /Gleason Drive intersection is expected to operate worse
than the 2014 Tri - Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E standard under both scenarios while the
Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to operate worse than LOS D under the four -lane
scenario.
During the PM peak hour, the Tassajara Road /Gleason Drive and Fallon Road /Dublin Boulevard
intersections are expected to operate worse than the 2014 Tri - Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS
E standard under both scenarios. Also, the Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection is expected to
operate worse than LOS E under the six -lane scenario.
Roadway LOS Results — Under Cumulative 2040 Conditions, all roadway segments north of Dublin Ranch
Drive operate at LOS C or better during AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Under both 4 -lane and
6 -lane scenarios the segment of Tassajara Road between Gleason Drive and Dublin Ranch Drive is
expected to operate at LOS C or LOS D during the AM peak hour in both directions. During the PM peak
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 4 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
hour it operates at LOS F in the northbound direction. The travel time is consistently longer under the 4-
lane Scenario than the six lane scenario; however there is very little difference in LOS between the two
scenarios.
Select -link Analysis — The results of the select link analysis for roadways in the study area indicate that
there is no significant difference in the traffic distribution pattern in the study area when the number of
travel lanes on Tassajara Road /Camino Tasssajara is increased from four to six lanes. However, widening
the study roadway from four lanes to six lanes is expected to slightly increase traffic on Tassajara
Road /Camino Tasssajara by less than 100 vehicles per hour in both northbound and southbound directions
during the AM and PM peak hours.
The select -link analysis results indicate that there are no significant differences in travel patterns under
both four lane and six lane scenario. The shift in traffic is relatively insignificant and does not affect the
overall travel distribution pattern in the study area. It is also not expected to significantly impact other
intersections and roadway segments along arterials in Contra Costa County and Alameda County.
The results of the Cumulative Conditions analyses for the four -lane and six -lane scenarios generally show
similar level of service with slight improvements at some intersections under the six -lane scenario.
However, for intersections that are expected to experience intolerable delays at LOS F, the six -lane
scenario provides less than 10 seconds of savings per vehicle during the AM peak hour, and an increase in
delay per vehicle during the PM peak hour. Additionally, while the six -lane scenario shows lower travel
time, the travel time savings is generally under 5% of the segment travel time with the exception of the
southbound segment along Tassajara Road between Gleason Drive and North Ranch Drive which shows
10% to 15% travel time savings during the PM peak hour.
It can therefore be concluded from the similarity in results of the analysis for the four -lane and six -lane
scenarios that widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is not expected to result in
any significant benefit to motorists.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 5 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Study lintei sections
Figure 1 shows the study area and locations of the 12 study intersections.
All of the study intersections are signalized and operating "free ". In other words the traffic signals are not
synchronized. The Camino Tassajara /Highland Road and Camino Tassajara /Windemere Road intersections
are operated by Contra Costa County. The El Charro Road /I -580 EB off -ramp and Fallon Road /I -580 WB
ramp intersections are operated by Caltrans. The Santa Rita Road /I -580 EB off -ramp and the Tassajara
Rd /I -580 WB off -ramp intersections are owned by Caltrans but operated by the City of Pleasanton. The
Camino Tassajara /Crow Canyon Road intersection is operated by the Town of Danville. The remaining five
intersections are all operated by the City of Dublin.
Study llll.: adw Segments
Tassaiara Road between Gleason Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive is a four -lane roadway with a raised
concrete median and curbs on either side of the roadway. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph with
access limited to only signalized intersections along the roadway. There are Class II bike lanes for both
directions of travel.
Tassaiara Road between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Fallon Road is a two -lane roadway with low density
of unsignalized access points. The segment has striped left -turn lanes at major access points as well as a
center -turn lane that continues north until Shadow Hill Drive and has a curb on the east side of the
roadway for the majority of the segment. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. There is a northbound
bike lane between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Shadow Hill Drive.
Tassaiara Road /Camino Tassaiara between Fallon Road and Windemere Parkway is a two -lane roadway
with a low density of unsignalized access points. The roadway segment has no median or curb on either
side of the roadway. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.
Camino Tassaiara between Windemere Parkway and Lusitano Street is a two -lane roadway with low
density of unsignalized access points. The roadway segment has no median or curb on either side of the
roadway. The roadway segment has striped left turn lanes at Highland Road and Finley Road. It has a
posted speed limit of 45 mph.
Camino Tassaiara between Lusitano Street and Crow Canyon Road is a four -lane roadway with a raised
concrete median between signalized intersections and curbs on both sides of the roadway. It has a posted
speed limit of 45 mph with access limited to only signalized intersections along the roadway.
Camino Tassaiara from Crown Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley Road is a four -lane roadway with a
raised concrete median between signalized intersections and curbs on either side. It has a posted speed
limit of 45 mph with access limited to only signalized intersections along the roadway.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 6 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
U
O
U
d
d
LEGEND
pj Shadow Creek or
Westminster PI Hansen Ln
•� I Buckingham PI 1
Figure
••••••• - Danville /Dublin City
- Signalized Study Intersection & Number Boundary
T 1 I( Knoll view
or
Canino
- Signalized Intersection -- - Contra Costa County
)PassaJara
Study Area
Tassajara Village or
Jasmine Wy
Lusitano Si
" "
t
\
" " " " " " " "'••••••••••
Jr
Charbray St
7
•a Tassajara Ranch or
Q: Lawrence Wy
Parkhaven or
N
N
�.
�
C
'•
.. ........ ...........................City of Danville
;...............,
Hi hland Rd
Bo / /ih
�m
er C
an
a
NN
F
o Windemere p
Um
G
�e
Ferd
Leh
A
a
....
• .......................
CostaGOolty"
o tca ....
uro�epawe`d
Aa E
Gp° ...........
.��atapt //o
�J
ti Sig Dr
...
.......
:
� N. Dublin ;
t'- Ranch Rd ry .................
j
p- Ja
N 0�
Turnberry r
�
.
(gyp Jai \0
Gleason Dr
t
Antone Wy
S Dublin
Ranch Rd
ao�
Pia
Central ParkNa
Dublin Blvd
r
Pimlico
0 Aga
Dr d
J
CO
Stonerid e Dr
Laseos`�
Vt
LEGEND
Figure
••••••• - Danville /Dublin City
- Signalized Study Intersection & Number Boundary
- Signalized Intersection -- - Contra Costa County
Study Area
AM (PM) - Segment Peak Hour Volumes Boundary
Study Scenarios
In order to determine the potential of traffic impact on local roadways in the Tri- Valley area from possible
traffic diversions, the following two scenarios are analyzed:
h � a� u 11m it t Fit lai Calllpa uuiy oin IIII assaiallra Roam:i °Calilcmmiiim o IIII ass l'allta
With an assumed capacity of four lanes on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from Gleason Drive in the
City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the Town of Danville in Contra Costa County,
the study assesses whether traffic to /from 1 -580 is expected to divert to use local roadways such as El
Charro Road /Fallon Road, Isabel Avenue, Portola Avenue, Collier Canyon Road, and North Livermore Road
to access Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Road via Highland Road. While the majority of Tassajara
Road /Camino Tassajara is modeled with four lanes, the updated CCTA Model has six lanes south of Dublin
Boulevard along Tassajara Road consistent with the number of existing travel lanes along the roadway
segment.
1.111ilix laiao"i Cap pa6Ity o in assa,jaiiµa assa ,J'a111fa
With assumed capacity of six lanes on Tassajara Road, there is the possibility that some traffic will use this
roadway to access Camino Tassajara in Danville to avoid congestion on 1 -580 and 1 -680. The updated CCTA
model assumes six lanes from the Tassajara Road /1 -580 interchange to Windemere Parkway and four
lanes from Windemere Parkway to Tassajara Ranch Drive according to the Contra Costa County General
Plan.
II to do i I.:i ulm, i ulcmm:lulcmi:m!
During the model scenario development process the CCTA travel demand model was adjusted to reflect
more accurately the existing and future roadway network configuration in the project area. The following
adjustments were made to the network:
• Revised the number of lanes along Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and El Charro Road to reflect
planned roadway improvements,
• Added a centroid connector from Silvera Ranch Drive to Tassajara Rd,
• Coded Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara as a 4 -lane facility from Gleason Drive to Sycamore
Valley Road for Scenario #1, and
• Coded Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara as a 6 -lane facility from Gleason Drive to Windemere
Parkway for Scenario #2.
Appendix C contains a table and maps showing the number of travel lanes assumed for the existing and
future scenarios.
In addition, key roadway improvements were identified and the future model networks for the study
scenarios were reviewed to ensure that the models accurately reflect the planned roadway
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 8 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
improvements. Some of the key projects that are included in the model networks according to the Contra
Costa County's Comprehensive Transportation Project List are:
• Construction of HOV lanes on 1 -580 from Tassajara Road to Vasco Road and further to San
Joaquin County
• Extension of Dublin Boulevard from Fallon Road to Airway Boulevard
• Hacienda Drive widening
• Extension of Dougherty Road
• Fallon Rd/El Charro Road interchange improvements
• Santa Rita Road interchange improvements
II.n vel (if Sepp'vi e . eth : dolo ies and IIIarametei s
Hill glllaafilll e : IIIC "'Illf' Illl ;mlllf .°
A Level of Service (LOS) evaluation is a qualitative description of an intersection's performance based on
the average delay per vehicle experienced during peak travel periods. LOS can range from "A"
representing free -flow conditions to "F" representing congested conditions with long delays. Generally,
LOS A is considered excellent, while LOS E is considered satisfactory operating conditions under the Tri-
Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan; and LOS F represents unacceptable conditions, at or above
capacity. LOS definitions, considering vehicle delay for signalized intersections, are shown in Table 3.
Level of
Service
Average Control Delay
(seconds /vehicle)
Description
Free flow/
A
<_ 10
Insignificant Delay
Stable Operation/
B
> 10 and <_ 20
Minimal Delay
Stable Operation/
C
> 20 and <_ 35
Acceptable Delay
D
> 35 and <_ 55
Approaching Unstable/
Tolerable Delay
E
> 55 and <_ 80
Unstable Operation/
Significant Delay
Forced Flow/
F
> 80
Excessive Delay
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research
Board, 2000.
According to the City of Dublin, Moller Ranch Traffic Impact Study intersection vehicle counts used for the
capacity analysis were conducted on April 19, 2012. Intersections were evaluated for traffic conditions
during the weekday AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 PM) using the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations methodology and Synchro 8.0 software.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 9 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
For signalized intersections, this methodology determines the capacity of each lane group approaching the
intersection. The LOS is then based on average delay (in seconds per vehicle) for the movements within
the intersection. A combined average delay, weighted by approach volume, and LOS is presented for the
intersection.
Roadway `;c till ,W IIC114'��uu IIC11�,. m!I'h
Measures of effectiveness (MOE) for roadway segments reported in this analysis include such corridor
performance measures as signal delay, travel time, and average speeds. Through vehicle travel speed is
used to characterize vehicular LOS for a given direction of travel along a roadway segment. This speed
reflects the factors that influence running time along each link and the delay incurred by through vehicles,
including control delay. LOS can range from "A" representing free -flow conditions to "F" representing
congested conditions with long delays and extensive queuing. Generally, LOS A is considered excellent,
while LOS E is considered satisfactory operating conditions under the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action
Plan; and LOS F represents unacceptable conditions, at or above capacity. LOS definitions, considering
vehicle travel speeds as a percentage of free flow speed, are shown in Table 4 and meet CCTA standards.
As there is no coordination between signals along the study roadway segments, travel time will be
calculated as the sum of free flow travel time along each study segment and the average through - vehicle
delay for study intersections within each study segment.
TIILIIIIr! 4 " " " " "' III'alr:u:;lwy Vim: ^,gu :m ^u It IIL.'. Tllhulurlr .!Wllhul::all::s a l:;i IIC:Jum ^ri'Iilu l'iiit'iil:::u u.!W
Level of Travel Speed as a
Service Percentage of Free Flow Description
Speed
A >85 Primarily Free flow operation
B > 67 and <_ 85 Reasonably unimpeded
operation
C >50 and <_67
Stable Operation
D >40 and <_50
Less stable operation
E > 30 and <_ 40 Unstable Operation/
Significant Delay
F > 30 Extremely low speed/
Extensive queuing
Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
The above MOEs for existing conditions provide a basis for evaluating the proposed scenarios. This will be
done by comparing the results of the each proposed scenario.
z According to the 2013 CCTA Technical Procedures (p.26) and specified in the 2014 Tri - Valley
Transportation /Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, "analysts are encouraged to use the 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual for analyses of impacts of development or benefits from transportation improvements ".
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 10 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
(1] 11 avel Illlf: em an del
To estimate the future year traffic demand inputs for the traffic operational analysis, the latest approved
version of the CCTA travel demand model was used. This model set is calibrated to 2000 traffic counts and
also makes use of 2010 count data. The land use and socio- demographics information is based on ABAG's
interim draft land use Projections 2011 (Current Regional Plans) which cover years 2010 through 2040 in
5 -year increments. It should be noted that the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan
environmental review is currently underway and will be based on ABAG's Projections 2013, but because
that set has not been reviewed and approved by the local jurisdictions, it includes an approximation of the
land use distributions and therefore not appropriate for the Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara capacity
analysis. In general, the land use estimates in Projections 2011 are higher than Projections 2013, making
the results of this analysis more conservative compared to results based on Projections 2013.
Different highway networks are available in the model to represent network improvements at different
horizon years. The current version of the travel demand model can generate scenario networks for all
years between 2000 and 2040. For scenario years that are not directly included in the ABAG land use
Projection, the model interpolates the land use between the nearest two years in order to develop the
land use set for the scenario year.
The current countywide travel demand model includes the following analysis periods:
• AM Peak hour,
• AM Peak period (6 -10 AM),
• PM peak hour,
• PM Peak period (3 -7 PM), and
• Off -Peak period, covering all remaining hours.
For this effort, the following model datasets were used:
• 2013 (representing the "existing year" model scenario),
• 2040 (representing Scenarios 1 and 2 in horizon year 2040).
For each scenario, the AM peak hour and PM peak hour assignments were utilized. The specific
procedures are further described in the following sections.
I�lIoadway Segment Volume IFlorecast Methodology
The volume forecasts for the study segments were developed using the CCTA travel demand model. In
general, outputs from the travel demand model were not used directly in the operational analysis.
Instead, changes in forecast demand volumes between the existing year and each future scenario year, as
produced by the travel demand model, were added to observed traffic volumes. This approach is
illustrated in the following equation:
Horizon Year Volumes = Existing (Observed) Volumes + (Horizon Year Model Forecast — "Existing Year"
Model Forecast)
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 11 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
For new facilities and movements that do not exist today, the horizon -year model forecast outputs were
used directly for input to the operational analysis, subject to the reasonableness and balancing
adjustments described below.
The 2013 model dataset was used for the "existing year" model forecast. The 2040 model dataset was
used to forecast growth for the future traffic conditions. For AM and PM analysis periods, the forecast
growth will be determined using the respective peak hour models. This growth volume was added to the
existing peak hour volume for each link. Appendix D contains maps of the study area showing model link
volumes for both existing and future year scenarios.
The approach described above was used to develop forecasts for the arterial segments, as well as the
approach and departure links for the study intersections.
III "i'��� e � � ���:" �I V� �i � n Volume VIII "� o i e ast Methodology
For the intersection analysis, an expanded approach was used. This approach involved applying the
procedures described above to determine approach -link and departure -link growth for each intersection,
then applying the Furness methodology to determine individual turning movements at each intersection.
Following this procedure, manual adjustments were made to balance demands between adjacent
intersections.
This process may be summarized as follows:
• Generate 2013 and 2040 model forecasts for each intersection approach and departure link;
• Compute the model growth for each link (2040 model output minus 2010 model output);
• Apply Furness methodology to compute individual turning movement demand forecasts using
existing turn movement demands and forecast approach and departure link growth; and
• Apply manual adjustments to balance demands between adjacent intersections.
As the largest part of the study corridor is in Contra Costa County, it was decided to use the CCTA travel
demand model for the roadway capacity analysis. However, DKS took a first step in assessing the CCTA
model by comparing it with a) the City of Dublin travel demand model and b) the Alameda countywide
travel demand model. The comparison mostly focused in the estimated peak hour volumes in the study
area, including but not limited to the following facilities: Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara, Windemere
Parkway, Fallon Road, Gleason Drive, Central Parkway, Dublin Boulevard, Dougherty Road, Santa Rita
Road, El Charro Road and Stoneridge Drive.
The CCTA travel demand model volumes were compared with the Alameda countywide travel demand
model volumes, as the City of Dublin and the Tri- Valley are incorporated in Alameda County. The
comparison showed that the two models (both based on land use forecasts of Projections 2011) produced
similar results with respect to the trip allocation in the study area, with the volumes in the CCTA model
being slightly more conservative. There were certain significant volume differences between the two
models along Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, but that did not raise concerns as it was due to those
facilities being coded differently in the two models; the two models have different assumptions about the
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 12 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
number of lanes of the two facilities, and that resulted in these facilities attracting trips differently in each
case.
Having compared the CCTA travel demand model volumes with those from the City of Dublin model and
the Alameda countywide model, as well as taking into account the fact that the majority of the study
segment is located in Contra Costa County, it was decided to use the CCTA travel demand model for this
analysis. The model scenarios were developed using the "unconstrained" version of the model as that
produced more conservative traffic volumes in the study area compared to the version that incorporated
"gateway capacity constraints ".
Significant IIIIIVQ'n, act X VQteVQ i
Coivatil a Costa CoI111uicmty eland IIII "'iutµli VaI14: :1Y IIII altµ �iucmm lll��muitµ����uu�muicm �.��u�uicm�::iiii�.
The Tri- Valley Transportation Council set maximum levels of congestion for routes of regional significance
such as intersections along Camino Tassajara. According to the CCTA requirements, level of service E (LOS)
is an acceptable level of traffic operation at intersections on the routes of regional significance in the study
area regardless of how the intersections are currently operating. Furthermore, intersections to be
evaluated under CCTA requirements include signalized intersections that are expected to be affected by
50 or more project trips in a peak period when used to assess the potential impact of new development.
The standard set forth for Routes of Regional Significance in the 2014 Tri - Valley Transportation
Plan /Action Plan is LOS E. All study intersections are on Routes of Regional Significance.
At the intersections of Camino Tassajara /Highland Road and Camino Tassajara /Windemere Parkway, the
LOS standard is LOS C based on the standard set forth in in the Contra Costa County General Plan. These
intersections are regarded as a semi -rural intersection and therefore have a more stringent performance
threshold as outlined in the County's comments in the Addendum to the Proposed Creekside Cemetery
Project.
An impact would be significant if an intersection operating at an acceptable level of service without the
project would exceed acceptable levels with the addition of project traffic. In addition, an impact would be
significant if a new intersection is identified as exceeding acceptable levels and if such intersection was not
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as a study intersection. The General Plan standard requires
that the City strive for LOS D at intersections. An impact would also be significant if an intersection is
already operating below an acceptable threshold and the project worsens the condition. The City of Dublin
uses HCM 2000 method for intersection LOS calculations. The remaining intersections were also analyzed
with the HCM 2000 method
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 13 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
owin ol'DaiucmOiiio :1
The Tri- Valley Council has established LOS standards for "Routes of Regional Significance." Routes of
Regional Significance include two corridors within Danville and one corridor on the edge of Danville. These
are:
• Danville Boulevard /San Ramon Valley Boulevard south of Sycamore Valley (a single corridor with a
missing segment through Downtown Danville in the center)
• Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara (a single corridor comprised of two roads)
• Crow Canyon Road (south of Camino Tassajara)
Intersections on the first two of these corridors are subject to an LOS E standard using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) Operational Method. The Town of Danville has a standard of LOS D for the
intersection of Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara.
Caltilraloan.
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D" on State
highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends
that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State
highway facility is operating at less (worse) than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be
maintained.
Exills tiii.iin g C Ilan. ii.tiii. firm.
II^l` X :liiiS Ili 1 affilµ Volumes and Illli,an.e C.onfigurations
The lane configurations for each of the study intersections are presented in Figure 2 and the Existing
Conditions traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows link volumes under existing traffic
conditions.
3 Town of Danville General Plan, Chapter 4, 2013
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 14 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
1. Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580
EB ramps
i
x'11
14rr
B
v
ti
a
j
°
{
a
2. Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580
WB ramps
€
a
a
-+ul
14rr
®
l
ro
;
kwy
R'�rn
3. Tassajara Rd & Dublin
Blvd
4
r
s
r
-I fit
4Y
•.
A
t
" -1 '
�
l
�ti.w•^
w ,
r
R
4. Tassajara Rd &Gleason
Dr
ill a
r
®h
r
,
J
ti iit
R
6
J
5. Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
6. Camino Tassajara
& Highland
Rd
7. El Charro Rd & 1 -580
EB ramps
8. El Charro Rd & 1 -580
WB ramps
4
i
®�
it
%
ffi tt►t
s %t
T
i
9. Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
30. Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch
Dr
11. Camino Tassajara &
Windemere Pkwy
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
A.
x'11'►
�
�'1
X11
I'll a a
�
hi
titi►
; ffi
hhi
tititi►t
�
�
s
LEGEND
M Traffic Signal
Figure 2
01 it ® Stop Sign
Existing Lane Configuration
P: \P \14 \14112 -001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd \06 Graphics \Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580 EB ramps
0374 (479)
000 0163(179)
538(434)0 00
147 (226)0 "� "�
665 (338) 0
Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580 WB ramps
0315 (298)
00 M544(509)
00
Tassajara Rd & Dublin
Blvd
_
015 (34)
191 (147)
000 a
m3884 (233)
59 (306)0 ®
000
63 (551)0
"_
181 (477) 0
Tassajara Rd & Gleason
Dr
_
051 (22)
0155 (67)
000 a
M25512 (151)
48 (213) 0 ®
000
114(192)0
_ "_ _
33 (66)0
Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
_
m0 (1)
03 (3)
000 e
02 (3)
192 (514) 0 ®
000
282 (1017)0
_ _ _
21 (18)M
Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
_ ET
m0 (0)
00 (0)
00
® 00 (1)
18 (88)0 ®
000
282 (1017)0
_ _ _
87 (329)0
Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd
0264 (43)
EM 097 (5)
® 00
Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr
00 g
1(5)0 ME
29 (10 )0
El Charro Rd & 1 -580 EB ramps
00
182 (182)0 ® 00
71 (19) 0
. Camino Tassajara & Windermere Pkwy
00
20 (30)0 ME
287 (124 )0
El Charro Rd & 1 -580 WB ramps
0198 (314)
02 (6)
00 ® 058 (22)
® 0m
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
028 (13)
0434 (438)
000
0252 (172)
71 (128)0
® 000
282 (1017)0
_ _
99 (184)0
LEGEND
IIIIIIIIII M Traffic Signal Figure 3
AM(PM) Volume Turning
Movements Existing Condition Turn Movement Volumes
P: \P \14 \14112 -001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd \06 Graphics \Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
IIIhitersectitn llf`Ieak llfltlllr° Inevej of Service Analysis „111E' is
ing :mtinditions.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Existing Conditions AM
and PM peak hours.
UlLlll��ii� 5 I!::'ll wtoorg (�';: indiut'lloin W Illintl�eirs ire t'lloin III evdll:: of eirviii�i:;e
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
Appendix A contains the LOS analysis and calculation worksheets. Based on the LOS results under Existing
Conditions, nine of the 12 study intersections currently operate acceptably according to applicable LOS
standards during AM and PM peak hours. The Santa Rita Road /1 -580 EB off -ramp intersection operates
acceptably at LOS D during the PM peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin
standard during the AM peak hour. The Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection operates acceptably
at LOS C during the AM peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin standard
during the PM peak hour. The Camino Tassajara /Highland Road intersection operates unacceptably at LOS
E under the Contra Costa County General Plan standard during the AM peak hour and operates acceptably
at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Only the intersection of Fallon Rd /Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Rd
during the AM peak hour operates worse than the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E
standard.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 18 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
AM peak hour
PM peak hour
No
Intersection Name
Control
Average
Average
Delays
LOS
Delays
LOS
1
Santa Rita Rd/
Signalized
55.9
E
38.1
D
1 -580 EB off -ramp
2
Santa Rita Rd/Tassajara
Signalized
10.3
B
12.1
B
Rd /1 -580 WB off -ramp
3
Tassajara Rd /Dublin Blvd
Signalized
35.8
D
57.8
E
4
Tassajara Rd /Gleason Dr
Signalized
27.8
C
36.5
D
Fallon Rd /Camino
5
Tassajara /Tassajara Rd
Signalized
16.0
D
46.4
D
6
Camino Tassajara/
Signalized
65.8
E
24.1
C
Highland Rd
7
El Charro Rd/
Signalized
4.0
A
7.5
A
1 -580 EB off -ramp
8
El Charro Rd /Fallon Rd /1-
Signalized
6.0
A
8.4
A
580 WB ramps
9
Fallon Rd /Dublin Blvd
Signalized
11.2
B
18.3
B
Fallon Rd/
10
Silvera Ranch Dr
Signalized
5.6
A
4.9
A
Camino Tassajara/
11
Windemere Pkwy
Signalized
21.6
C
23.5
C
12
Camino Tassajara and
Signalized
24.3
C
39.3
D
Crow Canyon Rd
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
Appendix A contains the LOS analysis and calculation worksheets. Based on the LOS results under Existing
Conditions, nine of the 12 study intersections currently operate acceptably according to applicable LOS
standards during AM and PM peak hours. The Santa Rita Road /1 -580 EB off -ramp intersection operates
acceptably at LOS D during the PM peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin
standard during the AM peak hour. The Tassajara Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection operates acceptably
at LOS C during the AM peak hour but operates unacceptably at LOS E under the City of Dublin standard
during the PM peak hour. The Camino Tassajara /Highland Road intersection operates unacceptably at LOS
E under the Contra Costa County General Plan standard during the AM peak hour and operates acceptably
at LOS C during the PM peak hour. Only the intersection of Fallon Rd /Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Rd
during the AM peak hour operates worse than the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E
standard.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 18 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
IlIo dwa IllllI ef if VIII Illlltll:lr IlllLev j of Se vie Analysis VIII ^N°1iiN inn Ain.di ions
Table 6 summarizes the average travel time and roadway segment level of service under existing
conditions. Average travel time was calculated as the sum of free -flow travel time and average signal delay
for through traffic at study intersections within each roadway segment. Free flow travel time was
determined using free -flow speeds calculated from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The
factors used to calculate free flow speed include posted speed limit, existence and type of curb and
median, access point density and number of lanes. Roadway Segment LOS is determined by vehicle travel
speeds as a percentage of free flow speed as defined in Table 4. Appendix B provides roadway segment
LOS analysis and calculation worksheets.
As shown in Table 6, all roadway segments operate at LOS C or better during AM and PM peak hours in
both directions. Generally, speeds are faster during the AM peak hour.
Ulblll��ii�m 6 II[mm'iii wtmon;g f:bindif'iiioin IllIoa :tw y Segment Ill.ev III of Service
Roadway Segment
Approach
Peak Hour
Average Travel Time (sec)
Segment LOS
Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr and
North Dublin Ranch Dr
Southbound
AM
69.6
C
PM
82.6
C
Northbound
AM
63.2
B
PM
79.7
C
Tassajara Rd between North Dublin
Ranch Dr and Fallon Road
Southbound
AM
86.2
A
PM
86.2
A
Northbound
AM
95.2
A
PM
111.0
B
Tassajara Rd /Camino Tassajara
between Fallon Rd and Windemere
Parkway
Southbound
AM
98.5
A
PM
109.8
B
Northbound
AM
87.8
A
PM
88.6
A
Camino Tassajara between Wind emere
parkway and Lusitano Street
Southbound
AM
329.2
A
PM
325.4
A
Northbound
AM
325.4
A
PM
325.8
A
Camino Tassajara between Lusitano
Street and Crow Canyon Rd
Southbound
AM
213.9
A
PM
213.9
A
Northbound
AM
237.6
A
PM
244.4
A
Camino Tassajara between Crow
Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley
Road
Southbound
AM
278.8
A
PM
301.6
B
Northbound
AM
250.8
A
PM
250.8
A
Notes: Free flow Sneed is defined by HCM 2010 methodoloev
Travel Time (sec) = The average time taken for a vehicle to travel the segment.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 19 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Future Curnulative (2040) ConAlltians
2040 Illlln and Ilse Illll s r iption.
According to the volume forecasts for year 2040, as 1 -580 gets more congested in the future due to
significant new development and growth in all of the Bay Area, traffic diverts to local streets in Dublin,
Livermore and Pleasanton. Growth in trip generation was based on land use projections included in the
CCTA Countywide Model, which is described more in detail under the Analysis Methodology section.
2040 Select �Jnk Analysis
Select -link analyses were conducted for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 under the AM peak hour and PM
peak -hour traffic conditions to determine the travel patterns of vehicles using various segments of Camino
Tassajara /Tassajara Road. The links selected for the analysis are Camino Tassajara north of Highland Road,
Tassajara Road between Fallon Road and Windemere Parkway, and Fallon Road between Antone Way and
Turnberry Drive. Table 7 shows average flows along several segments along Camino Tassajara /Tassajara
Road for both scenarios and peak hours.
Appendix E contains plots of the select -link analysis with traffic volumes along various roadways including
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara in the study area. The thickness of the various links graphically indicates
the level of traffic distribution along the various routes in the study area. As shown in the figures and
summarized in Table 6, there is no significant difference in the traffic distribution pattern in the study area
when the number of travel lanes on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara is increased from four to six lanes.
However, widening the study roadway from four lanes to six lanes is expected to slightly increase traffic
on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara by less than 100 vehicles per hour in both northbound and
southbound directions during the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore it can be concluded that there are no
significant differences in travel patterns under both four lanes and six lanes scenario.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show link volumes for the 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios respectively under cumulative
traffic conditions.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 20 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 21 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Roadway Segment
Approach
Peak Hour
Average
Average
Volume
Volume
AM
422
490
Southbound
PM
75
75
Tassajara Rd between Gleason Dr
AM
75
72
and North Dublin Ranch Dr
Northbound
PM
272
332
AM
500
550
Southbound
Tassajara Rd between North Dublin
PM
150
150
AM
175
150
Ranch Dr and Fallon Road
Northbound
PM
300
390
AM
670
750
Tassajara Rd /Camino Tassajara
Southbound
PM
320
315
between Fallon Rd and Windemere
Northbound
AM
603
660
Parkway
PM
495
550
AM
670
735
Camino Tassajara between
Southbound
PM
200
200
Windemere parkway and Lusitano
Street
Northbound
AM
400
400
PM
475
530
AM
300
400
Southbound
Camino Tassajara between Lusitano
PM
150
150
AM
600
600
Street and Crow Canyon Rd
Northbound
PM
200
200
AM
20
30
Camino Tassajara between Crow
Southbound
PM
30
30
Canyon Road and Sycamore Valley
Road
Northbound
AM
350
350
PM
40
50
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 21 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
IIIhit rs ction III�Ieak llf llllltlllr° ILevej of Service Analysis (CAnnulative 2040
Table 8 compares the results of the intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Cumulative Conditions
during the AM peak hour between the 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios.
AvIlUki! 8 (' ":u iinnullvt'iive v(W) oindiiit'ioiins Illunti!urSIRC ur)ur III eve III of Seiirvlii: e Alll i III °m ^vlllk 11llou.uir
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
During the AM Peak hour, the intersection LOS is generally similar between the two scenarios. The
following two intersections are expected to operate unacceptably under cumulative 2040 traffic
conditions:
• Santa Rita Rd and 1 -580 EB off -ramp (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
• Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
The intersections of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive and Santa Rita Rd and 1 -580 EB off -ramp operates
worse than the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E standard under both scenarios.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 24 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
With Optimization
Applicable
No
Intersection Name
Control
4 -Lane Scenario
6 -Lane Scenario
LOS
Average
LOS
Average
LOS
Standard
Delay
Delay
1
Santa Rita Rd and 1 -580
Signalized
94.5
F
95.8
F
D
EB off -ramp
Santa Rita Rd /Tassajara
2
Rd and 1 -580 WB off-
Signalized
29.4
C
29.2
C
D
ramp
Tassajara Rd and Dublin
3
Signalized
40.4
D
39.5
D
D
Blvd
Tassajara Rd and
4
Signalized
87.8
F
80.1
F
D
Gleason Dr
Fallon Rd /Camino
5
Tassajara and Tassajara
Signalized
18.6
B
16.9
B
D
Rd
6
Camino Tassajara and
Signalized
11.5
B
9.0
A
C
Highland Rd
El Charro Rd and 1 -580
7
Signalized
6.3
A
6.3
A
D
EB off -ramp
El Charro Rd /Fallon Rd
8
Signalized
6.1
A
9.7
A
D
and 1 -580 WB ramps
9
Fallon Rd /Dublin Blvd
Signalized
33.4
C
33.4
C
D
Fallon Rd /Silvers Ranch
10
Signalized
6.0
A
5.9
A
D
Dr
Camino Tassajara and
11
Signalized
28.2
C
27.4
C
C
Windemere Pkwy
Camino Tassajara and
12
Signalized
25.7
C
26.0
C
D
Crow Canyon Rd
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
During the AM Peak hour, the intersection LOS is generally similar between the two scenarios. The
following two intersections are expected to operate unacceptably under cumulative 2040 traffic
conditions:
• Santa Rita Rd and 1 -580 EB off -ramp (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
• Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
The intersections of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive and Santa Rita Rd and 1 -580 EB off -ramp operates
worse than the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E standard under both scenarios.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 24 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Table 9 compares the results of the intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Cumulative Conditions
during the PM peak hour between the 4 -Lane and 6 -Lane scenarios.
TvIlUki! (' ":u iinnullvt'iiive v(W) oindiiit'ioiins Illunti!urSIRC ur)ur III eve III Of Servlii:e Ilu11lll III "eavl4 111 °1n:: Jjr
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
During the PM Peak hour, the intersection LOS is generally similar between the two scenarios. The
following three intersections are expected to operate unacceptably under cumulative 2040 traffic
conditions:
• Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
• Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
• Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 25 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
With Optimization
Applicable
No
Intersection Name
Control
4 -Lane Scenario
6 -Lane Scenario
LOS
Average
LOS
Average
LOS
Standard
Delay
Delay
1
Santa Rita Rd and 1 -580
Signalized
39.2
D
47.7
C
D
EB off -ramp
Santa Rita Rd /Tassajara
2
Rd and 1 -580 WB off-
Signalized
12.9
B
17.8
B
D
ramp
Tassajara Rd and Dublin
3
Signalized
91.2
F
133.5
F
D
Blvd
Tassajara Rd and
4
Signalized
65.4
E
87.9
F
D
Gleason Dr
Fallon Rd /Camino
5
Tassajara and Tassajara
Signalized
16.8
B
17.1
B
D
Rd
Camino Tassajara and
6
Signalized
11.6
B
12.3
B
C
Highland Rd
El Charro Rd and 1 -580
7
Signalized
11.4
B
11.3
B
D
EB off -ramp
El Charro Rd /Fallon Rd
8
Signalized
7.4
A
4.4
A
D
and 1 -580 WB ramps
9
Fallon Rd /Dublin Blvd
Signalized
132.7
F
174.9
F
D
Fallon Rd /Silvers Ranch
10
Signalized
6.1
A
6.1
A
D
Dr
Camino Tassajara and
11
Signalized
20.9
C
20.6
C
C
Windemere Pkwy
Camino Tassajara and
12
Signalized
44.2
D
42.5
D
D
Crow Canyon Rd
Source: DKS Associates, 2014
Notes:
a. Delay is in seconds per vehicle and is based on average stopped delay.
b. LOS = Level of Service
BOLD indicates unacceptable LOS
During the PM Peak hour, the intersection LOS is generally similar between the two scenarios. The
following three intersections are expected to operate unacceptably under cumulative 2040 traffic
conditions:
• Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
• Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
• Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard (under both 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios)
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 25 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
The intersections of Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, and Fallon
Road and Dublin Boulevard operate worse than the 2014 Trii- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan LOS E
standard under both scenarios.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the forecasted traffic volumes for the 4 -lane and 6 -lane scenarios respectively
under cumulative 2040 traffic conditions. Appendix A provides LOS analysis and calculation sheets. Based
on the LOS results under Cumulative Conditions, nine of the twelve study intersections currently operate
at LOS E or better during both the AM and PM peak hours for both the 4 -Lane and 6 -Lane scenarios.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 26 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580 EB ramps
M420(409)
mmm 0208 (453)
705(256)m� EM
183 (325)0
992 (590) m
Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580 WB ramps
0536 (3 73)
ME 01318(346)
EM
Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
072 (76)
0658 (259)
mmm e 0844 (253)
159 (670) 0 ® MEM
189(1893)0 _ _ _
223 (509) m
Tassajara Rd & Gleason
Dr
0318 (89)
0652 (67)
MMM a
0348 (150)
86 (514)0 ®
MEM
110(304)0
_ _ _
13 (39) m
Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
MO (0)
02 (2)
Immm a
03 (5)
455 (854) 0 ®
MEM
568 (2486)0
_ _ _
97 (182)0
Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
0884 (0)
0954 (0)
00
® 0762 (1099)
36 (94) 0 ®
MEM
568 (2486)0
_ _ _
149 (0) m
Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd
080 (103)
EM 0266 (10)
® I�0
Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr
01� g
4 (9)m ME
102 (72 )0
El Charro Rd & 1 -580 EB ramps
Imm
429 (264)0 ® 00
206 (798)0
. Camino Tassajara & Windermere Pkwy
01�
24 �10,3�M ME
400 3150
EI Charro Rd & 1 -580 WB ramps
050 (27)
017 (102)
ME ® 0292 (380)
® I�m
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
082 (28)
M599(472)
0111Ym
0298 (109)
87 (189)0
® MEM
'353 (1264)0
49 (79) 0
LEGEND
it M Traffic Signal Figure 7
AM(PM) Volume Tu roing 4 -Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes
Movements
P: \P \14 \14112 -001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd \06 Graphics \Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580 EB ramps
M416 (426)
mmm m192(438)
727(285)m� EM
194 (330)l _ _
953 (611) m
Santa Rita Rd & 1 -580 WB ramps
ET
M494 (515)
ME m1335(337)
EM
Tassajara Rd & Dublin Blvd
M86 (155)
0680 (281)
mmm a m7888 (315)
160 (992)m ® MEM
232(1844)m "_ _ _
174 (458) m
Tassajara Rd & Gleason
Dr
M,312 (140)
609 (80)
MMM a
m42213 (191)
83 (391)m ®
MEM
111(232)m
"T "q "T
16 (24) m
Tassajara Rd & Fallon
Rd
m0 (0)
02 (2)
Immm a
m3 (5)
411 (940)m ®
MEM
6,33 (247,3)0
"T "q "T
64 (163)m
Fallon Rd & Dublin Blvd
Crow Canyon Rd
M826 (0)
0984 (0)
ME
® m782 (1133)
44 (20)m ®
MEM
6,33 (247,3)0
"T "q "T
199 (0) m
Camino Tassajara & Highland Rd
m 183 (103)
mm m135 (9)
® EM
Fallon Rd & Sivera Ranch Dr
ml� g
4 (9)m ME
101 (73)m
El Charro Rd & 1 -580 EB ramps
Imm
427 (252)m ® EM
208 (789)m
. Camino Tassajara & Windermere Pkwy
ml�
16 �102�M ME
401 309m
El Charro Rd & 1 -580 WB ramps
M75 (0)
011 (95)
ME ® M222(,366)
® I�m
12. Camino Tassajara &
Crow Canyon Rd
m126(25)
M671 (477)
mlllYm
m384 (104)
73 (185)m
® MEM
347 (1271)
35 (84)m
LEGEND p
lil M O
Traffic Signal Figure
AM(PM) Volume Tu roing 6 -Lane Cumulative Condition Turn Movement Volumes
Movements
P: \P \14 \14112 -001 City of Dublin On -Call Tassajara Rd \06 Graphics \Camino Tassajara Volume Figures v2
IIIoa a IIIIIIIeak VIII VIII ll:lr IIIILevej of Se i e Analysis (CA:nnulati v 20 "Ain jt i ins
Table 10 compares the estimated average travel times and segment LOS under each of the two scenarios.
Average travel time was calculated as the sum of free flow travel time and average signal delay for
through traffic at study intersections within each roadway segment.
As shown in Table 10, all roadway segments north of North Dublin Ranch Drive operate at LOS C or better
during AM and PM peak hours in both directions. Under both scenarios, the segment of Tassajara Road
between Gleason Drive and North Dublin Ranch Drive operates at LOS C or LOS D during the AM peak hour
in both directions. During the PM peak hour it operates at LOS E in the northbound direction. The travel
time is longer in almost all cases under the 4 -Lane Scenario; however there is very little difference in LOS
between the scenarios.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 29 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Ulblll��ii�! Ills) (`; iin n �llat'ive v(iyi:) ourmdifioins IlRi�i:)adway Se giinieiint III evei of Se
Notes: Free flow Speed is defined by HCM 2010 methodology
Travel Time (sec) = The average time taken for a vehicle to travel the segment.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 30 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis -Draft Report
4 -Lane Scenario
6 -Lane Scenario
Difference
Roadway
Segment
Approach
Peak
Hour
Average
Travel Time
Segment
Average
Travel Time
Segment
Average
Travel Time
Segment
(sec)
LOS
(sec)
LOS
(sec)
LOS
AM
79.7
C
78.4
C
-1.3
No change
Tassajara Rd between
SB
PM
70.0
C
61.6
B
-8.4
C413
Gleason Dr and North
NB
AM
89.1
D
86.2
C
-2.9
D4C
Dublin Ranch Dr
PM
137.3
E
135.1
E
-2.2
No change
AM
86.0
A
85.9
A
-0.1
No change
Tassajara Rd between
SB
PM
86.0
A
85.9
A
-0.1
No change
North Dublin Ranch Dr
and Fallon Road
NB
AM
93.4
A
93.2
A
-0.2
No change
PM
98.3
A
98.4
A
0.1
No change
Tassajara Rd /Camino
Tassajara between Fallon
SB
AM
103.1
B
101.9
B
-1.2
No change
PM
103.8
B
104.1
B
0.3
No change
Rd and Windemere
AM
89.2
A
88.9
A
-0.3
No change
Parkway
NB
PM
90.4
A
90.4
A
0
No change
Camino Tassajara
between Windemere
SB
AM
352.3
A
346.0
A
-6.3
No change
PM
330.5
A
329.9
A
-0.6
No change
parkway and Lusitano
AM
326.7
A
324.6
A
-2.1
No change
Street
NB
PM
327.6
A
326.9
A
-0.7
No change
AM
213.9
A
213.5
A
-0.4
No change
Camino Tassajara
SB
PM
213.9
A
213.5
A
-0.4
No change
between Lusitano Street
Ng
AM
237.8
A
237.0
A
-0.8
No change
and Crow Canyon Rd
PM
240.7
A
241.5
A
0.8
No change
Camino Tassajara
between Crow Canyon
SB
AM
280.6
A
281.1
A
0.5
No change
PM
307.1
B
305.4
B
-1.7
No change
Road and Sycamore
AM
250.8
A
250.3
A
-0.5
No change
Valley Road
NB
PM
250.8
A
250.3
A
-0.5
No change
Notes: Free flow Speed is defined by HCM 2010 methodology
Travel Time (sec) = The average time taken for a vehicle to travel the segment.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 30 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis -Draft Report
PkinAlkings aind C iin ll. ii. firm.
The CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model was executed for future 2040 traffic volumes to determine
the adequate number of lanes along Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara to accommodate traffic that will be
generated from proposed future developments in the vicinity of the Camino Tassajara Road in Dublin,
Livermore, San Ramon, Danville and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The results were compared
with the model output with forecasts from the Alameda CTC's Countywide Travel Demand Model and the
City of Dublin Model. While there is consistency in travel distribution pattern among the three travel
demand models, the CCTA Travel Demand Model was used for the study because majority of the study
roadway segments are in Contra Costa County and the model conservatively forecast higher traffic
volumes than the ACTC and Dublin travel demand models.
The level of service was conducted for key intersections in Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville and
unincorporated Contra Costa County to assess any possible traffic impacts due to traffic diversions.
The existing CCTA model shows variable lanes (i.e. 2 -3 lanes in each direction) along Tassajara
Road /Camino Tassajara and this study determined that either two or three lanes per direction produce
similar intersection and roadway segment LOS results along Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara Road
under future traffic conditions. The select -link analysis results indicate that there are no significant
differences in travel patterns under both four lanes and six lanes scenario.
The results of the Cumulative Conditions analyses for the four -lane and six -lane scenarios generally show
similar level of service with slight improvements at some intersections under the six -lane scenario.
However, for intersections that are expected to experience intolerable delays at LOS F, the six -lane
scenario provides less than 10 seconds of savings per vehicle during the AM peak hour, and an increase in
delay per vehicle during the PM peak hour. Additionally, while the six -lane scenario shows lower travel
time, the travel time savings is generally two seconds or less for segments with travel times between three
and five minutes.
It can therefore be concluded from the similarity in results of the analysis for the four -lane and six -lane
scenarios that widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is not expected to result in
any significant benefit to motorists.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 31 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Study PartI11,611,11pants
DKS Personnel
Bill Loudon, P.E.
David Mahama, P.E.
Joshua Pilachowski, PhD, P.E.
Adonis Garefalakis, E.I.T.
Garnet Wing, E.I.T.
Deserae Mallori
Others
Obaid Khan, P.E.
Gary Huising
Angela Villar, P.E.
Nancy Weir
John Cunningham
References
Principal -In- Charge
Project Manager
Transportation Engineer
Transportation Planner
Associate Transportation Engineer
Word Processing and Graphic Designer
City of Dublin
City of Dublin
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
Contra Costa County Public Works Department
1. Mollar Ranch Traffic Impact Study Final Report, Kimley -Horn & Associates, 0911012012
2. Green Traffic ADSEIR, Kittleson Associates 1012013
3. Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan, DKS, 2014
4. Comprehensive Agreement to Settle Litigation, Town of Danville v. Contra Costa, et al.,
(Contra Costa County Case No. C -02- 02250; San Joaquin County Case No. CV- 020073)
5. Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 and 2010 Transportation Research Board
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 32 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
N OeMMUMA
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
APPENDIX Al
Existing Condition
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1 -580 EB off - ramp /Pimlico Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
54
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
C
C
D
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
117.9
31.8
32.8
25.1
Approach LOS
F
C
C
C
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road & 1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
0 0 0
1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (perm)
t
i
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
544
0 315 0
1009
553 0
866
844
1900
1900 1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
0.97
0.88
0.95
1.00
0.91
0.88
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3433
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
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)
0
0
0
0
0 125
0
0
256
0
0
407
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
A
B
A
A
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
3 0
0
0
35
0
0
53
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
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
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
E
B
B
E
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
53.6
65.6
31.4
21.2
Approach LOS
D
E
C
C
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
8 0
0
0
116
0
0
115
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
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
D
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
41.1
40.1
21.3
24.5
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road /Syrah Drive
3/18/2015
t
II
i
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
0
0 0
0
0
54
0
0
486
Lane Group Flow (vph)
206
5
7
2
3 0
23
45
41
0
129
246
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
2
6
8
4
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
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
i
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
0
0
0 0
0
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
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1 -580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
182
0
71
0 0 0
0
75
21
0
59
270
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
0 0 0
0
83
23
0
66
300
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
61
0 0 0
0
1
0
0
94
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
202
0
18
0 0 0
0
84
21
0
122
150
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
A
A
A
A
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road /Fallon Road & 1 -580 WB on- ramp /1 -580 WB off -ramp
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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) 0
0 0 0
0
133 0
1
0 0
0
184
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
18
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
A
A
A
A
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
� � i
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
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
11
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
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
0
0
2
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
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
2 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
22
42
89
161
610 0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
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
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road /Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
3 0
0
1
76
0
0
51
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
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
28.4
25.4
20.7
23.9
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
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
Existing AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1 -580 EB off - ramp /Pimlico Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
54
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
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
E
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
49.3
36.2
42.1
27.3
Approach LOS
D
D
D
C
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road & 1 -580 WEB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
0 0 0
1900 1900 1900
Satd. Flow (perm)
t
i
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
Peak -hour factor, PHF
509
0 298 0
1433
677 0
1104
647
1900
1900 1900 1900
1900
1900 1900
1900
1900
5.4
5.4
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
0.97
0.88
0.95
1.00
0.91
0.88
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3433
2787
3539
1583
5085
2787
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)
0
0
0
0
0 43
0
0
266
0
0
266
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
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
6 0
0
0
162
0
0
80
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
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
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
E
E
E
E
E
Approach Delay (s)
40.5
59.4
70.5
61.9
Approach LOS
D
E
E
E
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
6 0
0
0
144
0
0
59
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
D
C
C
D
C
D
C
C
D
D
C
Approach Delay (s)
35.4
39.5
35.8
37.7
Approach LOS
D
D
D
D
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road /Syrah Drive
3/18/2015
t
II
i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
514
1
18
3
3
1
6
127
1
1
79
235
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
3
3
1
7
138
1
1
86
255
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
14
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
146
Lane Group Flow (vph)
559
1
6
3
3
0
7
138
0
1
86
109
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
2
6
8
4
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
E
E
E
E
C
C
E
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
64.1
56.9
27.0
24.7
Approach LOS
E
E
C
C
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
i
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
0
2
0 0
0
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
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1 -580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
182
0
19
0 0 0
0
33
158
0
157
425
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
0 0 0
0
36
172
0
171
462
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
18
0 0 0
0
21
21
0
56
56
Lane Group Flow (vph)
198
0
3
0 0 0
0
101
65
0
346
175
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
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road /Fallon Road & 1 -580 WB on- ramp /1 -580 WB off -ramp
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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) 0
0 0 0
0
265 0
0
11 0
0
52
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
18
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
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
� � i
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
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
7
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
C
C
C
D
D
A
B
A
Approach Delay (s)
30.8
40.9
12.2
10.7
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
0
0
5
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
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
4 0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
32
22
228
455
233 0
Turn Type
NA
custom
Prot
NA
NA
Protected Phases
4
58
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
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road /Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
1 0
0
15
209
0
0
53
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
D
D
C
D
C
D
C
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
47.8
36.3
33.7
33.5
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
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
Existing PM 10/3/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
APPENDIX A2
Cumulative Conditions 4 -Lane Scenario
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1 -580 EB off - ramp /Pimlico Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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)
0
0
7
0 0
32 0
0
318
0
0
336
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
54
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road & 1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
� � i
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) 0
0
0
0 0
12
0
66
0
0
282
559
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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)
0
0
4
0
0
59
0
0
148
0
0
201
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
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
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
C
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
47.5
52.4
34.4
33.1
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road /Syrah Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
0 0
0
0
40
0
0
659
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
2
6
8
4
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
C
C
C
D
C
C
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
29.1
37.0
12.3
17.7
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
i
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
0
8
0 0
0
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1 -580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Lane Configurations
4.0
rr
Volume (vph)
429 0
206
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
Frt
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
ir t
I WSW
0 0 0 0 277
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
636 0 1692 747
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
0.92
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4420
1362
5085
1583
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
0 0 0
0
308
707
0
1880
830
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
18
0 0 0
0
134
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
477
0
211
0 0 0
0
528
353
0
1880
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
B
A
A
A
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road /Fallon Road & 1 -580 WB on- ramp /1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
i
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)
0 0
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
233
233
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
18
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
� � i
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
8
4
6
2
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
D
D
C
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
37.6
27.1
42.3
37.9
Approach LOS
D
C
D
D
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
0
0
4
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
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
58
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road /Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
B
E
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
30.7
25.2
23.3
26.4
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1 -580 EB off - ramp /Pimlico Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
54
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
D
D
C
D
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road & 1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
� � i
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)
0
0
0
0
0 13
0
83
0
0
179
209
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
D
D
D
D
E
F
B
F
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
88.5
51.4
80.1
34.1
Approach LOS
F
D
F
C
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road /Syrah Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
0 0
0
0
1
0
0
307
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
2
6
8
4
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
i
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1 -580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Lane Configurations
4.0
rr
Volume (vph)
264 0
798
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
Frt
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
ir t
I WSW
0 0 0 0 1663
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
949 0 739 602
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
0.97
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4677
1362
5085
1583
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
0 0 0
0
1848
1054
0
821
669
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
186
0 0 0
0
59
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
293
0
701
0 0 0
0
2190
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road /Fallon Road & 1 -580 WB on- ramp /1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
i
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)
0 0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
8
127
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
18
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
� � i
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)
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
56
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
8
4
6
2
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
0
0
29
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
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
58
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road /Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
4 0
0
17
26
0
0
121
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
E
E
B
E
C
D
C
D
F
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
54.7
35.5
36.8
43.0
Approach LOS
D
D
D
D
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
APPENDIX A3
Cumulative Conditions 6 -Lane Scenario
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1 -580 EB off - ramp /Pimlico Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
54
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road & 1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
� � i
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) 0
0
0
0 0
11
0
71
0
0
342
584
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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)
0
0
4
0
0
72
0
0
185
0
0
221
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
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
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
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
46.4
51.4
33.7
32.9
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road /Syrah Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
0 0
0
0
39
0
0
644
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
2
6
8
4
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
C
C
C
D
D
C
A
A
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
26.5
38.3
11.2
16.8
Approach LOS
C
D
B
B
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
i
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
0
1
0 0
0
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1 -580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Lane Configurations
4.0
rr
Volume (vph)
427 0
208
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
Frt
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
ir t
I WSW
0 0 0 0 257
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
636 0 1720 734
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
0.92
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4407
1362
5085
1583
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
0 0 0
0
286
707
0
1911
816
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
16
0 0 0
0
133
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
474
0
215
0 0 0
0
507
353
0
1911
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
B
A
A
A
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road /Fallon Road & 1 -580 WB on- ramp /1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
i
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)
0 0
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
223
223
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
18
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
A
B
A
B
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
� � i
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
8
4
6
2
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
D
D
C
D
C
C
D
C
E
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
35.2
28.5
43.8
36.5
Approach LOS
D
C
D
D
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
0
0
4
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
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
58
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
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road /Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
D
C
C
C
C
D
C
B
D
C
C
Approach Delay (s)
31.8
24.8
24.3
26.6
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
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
Cumulative AM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 2 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Santa Rita Road & 1 -580 EB off - ramp /Pimlico Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
54
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Santa Rita Road /Tassajara Road & 1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
� � i
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)
0
0
0
0
0 10
0
51
0
0
115
196
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 2
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Tassajara Road & Dublin Boulevard
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
5
2
3
1
6
3
8
7
4
Permitted Phases
2
6
8
4
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
4: Tassajara Road & Gleason Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
C
C
D
C
D
F
B
F
B
B
Approach Delay (s)
216.8
39.3
77.4
61.8
Approach LOS
F
D
E
E
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 4
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Fallon Road /Camino Tassajara & Tassajara Road /Syrah Drive
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
0 0
0
0
1
0
0
291
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
2
6
8
4
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 5
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Camino Tassajara & Highland Road 3/18/2015
i
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 6
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: El Charro Road & 1 -580 EB off -ramp 3/18/2015
Lane Configurations
4.0
rr
Volume (vph)
252 0
789
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
1900 1900
1900
Total Lost time (s)
4.0
4.0
Lane Util. Factor
0.97
0.88
Frt
1.00
0.85
Flt Protected
0.95
1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
3433
2787
Flt Permitted
0.95
1.00
ir t
I WSW
0 0 0 0 1646
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
931 0 745 605
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.86
0.86
0.91
1.00
0.97
0.85
1.00
0.85
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4681
1362
5085
1583
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
0 0 0
0
1829
1034
0
828
672
RTOR Reduction (vph)
0
0
148
0 0 0
0
55
0
0
0
0
Lane Group Flow (vph)
280
0
729
0 0 0
0
2157
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 7
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: El Charro Road /Fallon Road & 1 -580 WB on- ramp /1 -580 WB off -ramp 3/18/2015
i
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)
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
6
128
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
18
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 8
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Fallon Road & Dublin Boulevard 3/18/2015
� � i
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)
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
87
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
8
4
6
2
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Fallon Road & Silvera Ranch Drive 3/18/2015
t
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
0
0
0
0
30
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 10
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Camino Tassajara & Windemere Parkway 3/18/2015
t
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
58
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
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 11
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
12: Crow Canyon Road /Blackhawk Road & Camino Tassajara
3/18/2015
ir
t
II
i
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
0
3 0
0
19
27
0
0
128
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
D
D
D
D
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
Cumulative PM 5:00 pm 10/3/2014 3 -Lanes Synchro 8 Report
JMP Page 12
� • •' � i
� � . , ., l
� � �
VVmVQQQmQmQQQQQQQQQQQmQQ
v�
000000000000000000000000
ws
y v
11 11
M, rmi
v v
v m
v ° m
v v
v v
v v
v ° °v
m
m
v v
Q
IL
_
m
h
ry v
v m
n
�O v
V
ro
C
O
m
Q
F
B g.
u
m m
V Ih
v rn
CO V
m
c� V
vi
to V
ry
—
o v
^
N 7
p
i 0
d
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
s
e
R
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ID
'o
0
0
Z
0
0
Z
0
0
Z
0
Z
Z
Z
e F -
°
CO
-
u
v
m
m
—
F
� u
W
B
h N
u Z
u 0
3 s
u
W a
v
v
v
v
v
v
� u
u
a0 u6j
7
u
Q
u
0
J
u
Q Q
� w
O
c n
g
u)
0
0
-Q
-Q
> -
> -
tj
u«
C U
G
V
o --
Z 2 V
V
O Z
Z
V
O Z
Z
«-
V
« a
V
7
u
u o
v
v
v
v
v
v
U
u �
v
v
v
v
v
v
O
u) J
z s
u) �
m
0 —°
Z LL
F
v m
v 3
3°
O
3 m m mc
D
O m
m
m
V
m
m 0
0
D
V o m
m 2 «
m
v
m —
3
0
K O
E Z
K C
E s
E
N L
N u
C
N T
m
' — m
V E
' 3 mm
o E O
'E _
c 0
'E _
o V o
'E 3O m
>m
V> J
V J V
V V T
C
Q
V
V
p
w
Q
Q
Q
Q
m
m
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
m
Q
Q
u
N
u
C N
P
O
P
M'o
�
co
N
O
O�
P
d
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
Q O
N
N
N
H
4=
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
Q
d
i
V
O
O
R
p
s
-
O
w
Z
p
s
n°
O
w
Z
p
s
n°
O
w
Z
p
s
n°
O
w
Z
p
s
n°
O
w
Z
p
s
n°
O
w
Z
u
d O
H
N
C
C V V
N N
y � N
N
0 .YO N
3
It 4L
a
u YI
v
v
v
v
v
v
O
GO
V Q
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
Q
Y
CO
J
N
N
N
N
N
N
y C
V
vt
vt
V
O
O
V y
Q 0
N wh
V O
Q 0,
C
G
p
C Q
n
N
N
O
O
O
n
N
n
N
U u
N
O
j
- m
v
' V
o
Z V
o O
o o
' V
' V
s
Z
Z
s
s
Z
Z
v °
y .O+
W
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
U
a E
v
v
v
v
v
v
C t
m
O K
s
o
°
E
v"
` N
N s
v
V
C
^�S
o E o
o O
o o
M
F p p
F p s
m
F F
m -
V J
m - T
Im
V J V
m o m
O
m
C
{n
Y
C
N
v
c
c
u°
Y
U
U
u)
V m
V w
Q Q
Q Q
m m
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q m
Q Q
'OH
O Y Sp
N c
—
M
V V
V V
M M
V V
V V
V V
V V
M,^
V
V V
Q
IL
6
Q
F
h 7
C D
d x
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
S
OO
ID
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
Z
0
0
O
Z
0
O
Z
0
O
Z
O
Z
0
O
Z
Y
-
Y Y
W �
V
CO
M
—
M
—
N
N
F
� Y
—
Y.
B
h N
u =
u 0
3 s
u
W a
v
v
v
v
v
v
� Y
Y
a0 u6j
7
Q
Q
u
u
Q p
"o
—
c n
g
U u Q
u)
0
0
'
`o o
u«
C U
G
V
o- l
Z V
V
O Z
Z
V
O Z
Z
« �u
V
a
V
7
u
Y o
v
v
v
v
v
v
U
u �
v
v
v
v
v
v
O
u) J
z sY
Y w •}
—
—
—
N
u) �
m
V
o —°
Z LL
IM
v
v 3
3°
3
C
D
C
O m
m
m
V
0
0
D
V o m
«
m
m
v
m —
3
K O
Le Z
Le s
L'
T
109
m
m
' — m
v E
' 3
E o
'E . -
c o
'E _
0 V o
'E
F 0
F D 0o
>�
F >
V> J
V J V
emu
V V T
UUMMELO
v
0
0
bD
E 'E
o Z > > > > > > Z Z
O W
bn
N C
O t
V
c
v
U
C
O
O [0
In M M M M M M N N M
m M M M M M M N N M
Q Z
U/
c
v
v
v
0
bn
E .E O O O O v v v O O
p N Z Z Z Z >. >. >. Z Z
O W
bn
y C
O t
V
c
v
U
N C
O
O [0
In M M N M N N N N M
m M N N N N N N N M
Q Z
U/
c
M1
C
U/
O O O O O
'6 Z} Z} j Z Z Z j
Q
U/
0
O
bn
c
X m
C W \
O c m
O Z
-6 -O
V CO M N N N N N N N M
b0 Y
C U/ C
y Lr- V
X '6
W p
Q
c
U/ m
O m M N N N N N N N N
Z
fb V
C
bn
0
3 v v o 3 0
m
U
O d U C
U
c c = N c O
0 v c c o E m U
0
N O m
O V
O>
Q 0 0 t
E> z O O a T
C
N a m y0 O rb O
bD
~ V '- C E t
0
a)
In
C_ O Q d U j O U) C C
00
Z U
N c_ o
m Z N
� c
o
H W
O O O O
Z Z Z Z
M M M M
M M M M
O O
> Z > Z
M M M M Y
M M M M C
O
c
m
N M N M
N M N M
N N N N
N N N N
Y C =
d O
U)
V O
p ? O O
E d C
b b O 2
m c v f0
V
W N
c
s v
E
0
i
1 �
Ln
c
0
+1
CL
E
Q
a�
c
J
4,
c
O
U
N
C
O
Q
E
Q
N
C
(6
J
r,l
M
M r
I
M,
i I
Fallon Rd
o
--+ M M
4; a
r
w
N
;
J � r
i+
Au
Q II I
t 1M
O
5
m "
"
r
I
�I
d N
N
"
a 6
^� ,
,. :
:.... �
�M
PU ^
^ I I
I
F
II
V
0
i
V
v1
0
i
V
v1
O
U
N
C
O
Q
E
Q
N
C
(6
J
N Oo3oMa[M
Link Volumes
Link Volumes (cont'd)
N
O
i
V
v1
O
i
V
v1
L
0
cd
C
Q
N
\0
J
0
i
V
v1
,,,
,. I
a
..
w v
��
�,
�,�.�
,�, ���
,��r �,
�--I
0
i
V
v1
0
,,,b
�� „�� ,,
\0
mmma
Camino TassaJJ'ara Capacity Analysis
1,000 500 250
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
AM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 1
1� s
p
Camino Tassa ara Capacity Analysis
750 375 188
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
PM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 1
Camino Tasisi
iaara Capacity Analysis
1111111
750 375 188
0 .5 1 1.5
��
Miles
AM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 2
�y�a.
i Ni Analysis
Camino Tassiiiiii a ii ara Capacity
750 375uu 188
0 .5 1 1.5
Miles
PM Peak Hour Select -Link Analysis - Scenario 2
TASSAJARA ROAD
CAPACITY AT BUILD -OUT
4 LANES
MOLLER
DEVELOPMENT
ENTRANCE
6 LANES "144404(
Rp
4 LANES
N. DUBLIN
RANCH DR.
4
�7.
4�
S. DUBLIN
RANCH DR.
•
GLEASON DR.
6 LANES
CENTRAL PKWY.
I . .- :_ ')
DUBLIN BLVD.
8 LANES N
0
"G: \TRANSPORTATION \Tassajara Ultimate Lanes.pub"
REV. 9 /1/2015
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 674 -7209 Fax: (925) 674 - 7250
TO: Members, Dougherty Valley Oversight Committee
Gu..
FROM: John Cunningham, Principal Transportation Planner
DATE: November 24, 2015
SUBJECT: Reduction of Future Camino Tassajara from 6 to 4 Lanes Based on
Findings of the Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
Background
Camino Tassajara is a principal arterial in Contra Costa County from the Town of Danville to the
Contra Costa /Alameda County Line, where the roadway changes name to Tassajara Road in the City
of Dublin. Both the Contra Costa County and City of Dublin General Plans identify an ultimate, 6-
lane road configuration in the vicinity of the County Line. Since 2010, the Public Works Department
has been coordinating with the City of Dublin to realign the roadway between Windemere Parkway
and Fallon Road as part of the Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Road Realignment Project.
In 2014, Contra Costa County was approached by the City of Dublin regarding policies for Camino
Tassajara in the vicinity of the County Line. Specifically, Dublin asked if the County would
participate in a study to determine if future volumes warranted a future, 6 -lane Camino
Tassajara /Tassajara Road.
Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (DVSA)
The DVSA (referenced sections attached, full document available at the link below') includes
stipulations addressing 1] consultation with the Town of Danville and City of San Ramon on certain
approvals2, and 2] improvements to certain roadways in and serving the Dougherty Valley.
The DVSA addresses widening of Camino Tassajara as follows:
3.7.2.2 Additional Project Traffic Improvements
Traffic improvements in addition to the Initial Project
Traffic Improvements may also be necessary (highlight added
by J.C.) to accommodate the Initial Level of Development
or Subsequent Levels of Development.
i
http: / /www.co. contra - costa. ca.us /DocumentCenter /View/25997
24.5.3 Major Discretionary Approvals. The County shall, directly or through the
Conferral Process, give good faith consideration to the comments of San Ramon and
Danville in connection with the County's consideration of the following actions or
approvals relating to the Dougherty Valley: (i) any and all general plan amendments,
amendments to the Specific Plan...
EXHIBIT C -2
Additional Project Traffic Improvements*
C -2.2. Camino Tassajara Road, widen from two to six
lanes between Windemere Parkway and the County line.
* Amendments to this list may be made upon the written
agreement of the County, the Developers and the
Petitioner City in whose jurisdiction the relevant
traffic improvement is /would be located.
County staff conferred with staff from the City of San Ramon (Transportation Division Manager)
and Danville (Community Development) in the development of a study approach to determine the
appropriate width of Camino Tassajara /Tassajara Road per the DVSA.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
City and County staff determined that a detailed traffic analysis would be necessary to establish
whether or not widening Camino Tassajara to 6 lanes was warranted. The analysis would be used to
interpret the relatively ambiguous threshold for roadway expansion established in the DVSA, "may
also be necessary ".
The City of Dublin and the County initiated the Tassajara Road/Ca w ino Tassajara Capacity Anal SIS
with DKS Associates as the consultant. The Scope of Work and findings were reviewed and by City
and County Staff, as well as the Cities of San Ramon and Danville. In summary, the analysis
examined two related issues:
1. Are 2 or 3 lanes (per direction) needed on Camino Tassajara ( "Tassajara Road" in Alameda
County) to operate acceptably in 2040?
2. What is the effect of either the lane configuration, if any, on traffic diversion?
Summary of Findings
The Executive Summary and Finding and Conclusions of the analysis are attached to this memo and the
full document can be found at the link in the footer3. A summary of the findings is below.
Diversion
Very minimal diversion was identified; the most significant shift was a minor (less than 1%
shift in volume) shift from Dougherty Road to Camino Tassajara in a six lane scenario. That
<1% shift equals less than a hundred vehicles per hour.
Level -of- Service
With many traffic studies there is an explicit, quantifiable threshold that a proposed project or
improvement is weighed against. As indicated above, the threshold in the DVSA for
determining whether or not the improvement is needed is, "may also be necessar�l'. Given this
ambiguity, the applicable level of service (LOS) standards from participating jurisdictions were
3 The full document, including technical appendices is available here:
http:// www.cccounty.u,s /DocumentCenter /View /36574
used as thresholds.
The 4, 6 lane configurations produced similar LOS results, with minor improvements in the 6
lane scenario. Those results are within the adopted standards in Contra Costa County. With
intersections that operate at LOS F, the 6 lane didn't improve the score. Furthermore, the
intersections operating at "F" were all in Alameda County /Dublin.
Travel Time
A six lane Camino Tassajara had lower travel times. However, the time savings was minor,
along one segment with a 3 -5 minute travel time the savings were two seconds or less.
Tri- Valley Action Plan
Camino Tassajara is designated as a Route of Regional Significance in the Tri- Valley Action Plan.
The Action Plan identifies projects to improve the designated Regional Routes. For Camino
Tassajara the improvement is listed as "widening" with no additional specificity. A widening to a 4
lane cross section would be consistent with the Action Plan.
Future Plans
There is no discussion or intent at this time to further limit Camino Tassajara to a 2 lane
configuration.
Joint City /Town /County Staff Recommendation
ACCEPT the findings of the Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis, and SUPPORT
the reduction of the future designation of Camino Tassajara from Windemere Parkway to the
County Line from six to four lanes in the Contra Costa County General Plan.
Attachments
• Excerpts — Tassajara Road/Camino Tassajara Capacity Analysis
• Excerpts — Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement
cc: John Kopchik, Director — DCD
Maureen Toms, Deputy Director - DCD
Julie Bueren, Director — PWD
Lisa Bobadilla, Transportation Division Manager, City of San Ramon
Tai Williams, Community Development Director, Town of Danville
Martin Engelmann, Deputy Director - CCTA
Excerpts only in this attachment:
Full document available here:
http:// www. cccounty .us /DocumentCenter /View/36574
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara
Capacity Analysis
Final Report
1970 Broadway, Suite 740
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 763 -2061
March 19, 2015
Executive SuIrturnary
The City of Dublin and Contra Costa County are planning to improve transportation facilities along the
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Road corridor to meet future multi -modal transportation needs. It is a
Route of Regional Significance in the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan and it is expected that
future growth in traffic along the study roadway will result primarily from planned residential
developments in the proximate region. The purpose of this study was to determine the number of travel
lanes and intersection configuration needed to operate Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara to meet the
standards of Contra Costa County, the City of Dublin, the City of Danville, the City of San Ramon and the
Tri Valley Transportation Plan /Action Plan'. The study roadway segment of Tassajara Road/ Camino
Tassajara is from Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the
Town of Danville in Contra Costa County. This study was conducted in collaboration with City of Dublin
staff, Alameda County staff, San Ramon and Danville staff, and Contra Costa County and Contra Costa
County Transportation Authority staff.
Study Approach
Key intersections and roadway segments in the study area were selected in consultation with Cities of
Dublin, Danville and San Ramon, and Contra Costa County staff. The objective of the study was to
determine if two or three travel lanes per direction are needed on Tasssajara Road /Camino Tassajara to
operate the roadway acceptably under future (2040) traffic conditions. Two traffic scenarios were studied
to evaluate the number of lanes needed to meet the relevant standards and to determine the potential
traffic impact on local roadways in the Tri - Valley area from possible traffic diversions described as follows:
Scenario #1— Four -lane Capacity on Tassaiara Road /Camino Tassaiara
With an assumed capacity of four lanes on Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from Gleason Drive in the
City of Dublin in Alameda County to Sycamore Valley Road in the Town of Danville in Contra Costa County,
the study assessed whether relevant standards would be met and whether traffic to /from 1 -580 would be
expected to divert to use local roadways such as El Charro Road /Fallon Road, Isabel Avenue, Portola
Avenue, Collier Canyon Road, and North Livermore Road to access Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara Road
via Highland Road. While the majority of Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara was modeled with four lanes,
six lanes were assumed south of Dublin Boulevard along Tassajara Road consistent with the number of
existing travel lanes along the roadway segment.
Scenario #2 — Six -lane Capacity on Tassaiara Road /Camino Tassaiara
With an assumed capacity of six lanes on Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara, the study assessed
whether relevant standards would be met and whether some traffic would use this roadway as a link
between 1 -580 and 1 -680 to avoid congestion on 1 -580 and 1 -680. It was determined from the travel
demand forecast and LOS analysis that widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is
expected to attract additional traffic of approximately 100 vehicles per hour each during both the AM and
1 Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (1994)
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 1 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
PM. This is the traffic that would have otherwise used other arterials such as Dougherty Road, Fallon
Road, Windemere Parkway and Bollinger Canyon Road, Airway Parkway and 1 -680 to and from job rich
areas south of Contra Costa County. The shift in traffic from the various listed arterials is relatively
insignificant (less than 1 percent) and does not affect the overall travel distribution pattern in the study
area. It is also not expected to significantly impact other intersections and roadway segments along
arterials in Contra Costa County and Alameda County. However, a slight shift in traffic from Dougherty
Road is expected to relieve traffic congestion along Dougherty Road and particularly at the critical
Dougherty Road /Dublin Boulevard intersection.
The study roadway segments and intersections were analyzed under existing and cumulative (future 2040)
traffic conditions. The existing conditions were analyzed using recent traffic data from multiple sources,
including the Mollar Ranch Traffic Impact Study and the 2014 Tri- Valley Transportation /Action Plan.
The CCTA countywide travel demand model was used to forecast the cumulative 2040 traffic volumes
because it produced a more conservative traffic forecast than the Dublin travel demand model and the
Alameda countywide travel demand model. The detailed discussion on the reason for selecting the CCTA
travel demand model is included in the Analysis Methodology section of this report. Furthermore, a select -
link analysis was conducted to determine travel patterns and the extent of traffic diversion in the study
area that may result from widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four travel lanes to six travel
lanes. The intersection and roadway segment level of service analysis were conducted using the Highway
Capacity Manual analysis methodology.
Summary if IlllIe sults
This is an investigative study to determine the number of travel lanes needed to operate Tassajara
Road /Camino Tassajara acceptably according to established and applicable significance criteria. The
analysis included level of service analysis for 12 intersections and six (6) roadway segments within the
study area as listed in Table 1.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 2 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
PkinAlkings aiind C InA ii.airm.
The CCTA Countywide Travel Demand Model was executed for future 2040 traffic volumes to determine
the adequate number of lanes along Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara to accommodate traffic that will be
generated from proposed future developments in the vicinity of the Camino Tassajara Road in Dublin,
Livermore, San Ramon, Danville and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The results were compared
with the model output with forecasts from the Alameda CTC's Countywide Travel Demand Model and the
City of Dublin Model. While there is consistency in travel distribution pattern among the three travel
demand models, the CCTA Travel Demand Model was used for the study because majority of the study
roadway segments are in Contra Costa County and the model conservatively forecast higher traffic
volumes than the ACTC and Dublin travel demand models.
The level of service was conducted for key intersections in Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville and
unincorporated Contra Costa County to assess any possible traffic impacts due to traffic diversions.
The existing CCTA model shows variable lanes (i.e. 2 -3 lanes in each direction) along Tassajara
Road /Camino Tassajara and this study determined that either two or three lanes per direction produce
similar intersection and roadway segment LOS results along Tassajara Road and Camino Tassajara Road
under future traffic conditions. The select -link analysis results indicate that there are no significant
differences in travel patterns under both four lanes and six lanes scenario.
The results of the Cumulative Conditions analyses for the four -lane and six -lane scenarios generally show
similar level of service with slight improvements at some intersections under the six -lane scenario.
However, for intersections that are expected to experience intolerable delays at LOS F, the six -lane
scenario provides less than 10 seconds of savings per vehicle during the AM peak hour, and an increase in
delay per vehicle during the PM peak hour. Additionally, while the six -lane scenario shows lower travel
time, the travel time savings is generally two seconds or less for segments with travel times between three
and five minutes.
It can therefore be concluded from the similarity in results of the analysis for the four -lane and six -lane
scenarios that widening Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara from four to six lanes is not expected to result in
any significant benefit to motorists.
Tassajara Road /Camino Tassajara 31 March 19, 2015
Capacity Analysis —Draft Report
Excerpts only
Full document available here:
http: / /www.co. contra - costa. ca .us /DocumentCenter /View/25997
AGREEMENT
TO SETTLE LITIGATION
RELATING TO
THE DOUGHERTY VALLEY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Town of Danville et al. v. Counly of Contra Costa et al.
Case No. C 93 -00231
Contra Costa County Superior Court
May 11, 1994
r
3.7.21 initial Project Traffic Improvements, The
specific traffic improvements described on Exhibit C -1, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference (the "initial Project Traffic Improvements "), are
projected to accommodate an "Initial Level of Development" of 8,500 units at levels of
service acceptable to San Ramon and Danville. The Initial Project Traffic
Improvements described on Exhib C- were identified by the Parties to this
Agreement as being appropriate and acceptable means to mitigate the traffic - related
impacts of such 8,510 units„ and will be constructed by the Developers when needed.
Traffic improvements in addition to the Initial Project Traffic Improvements may also
be necessary to acconimodate the Initial Level of Development or Subsequent: levels of
Development. Such additional traffic improvements (which, together with the Initial
Project Traffic Improvements, are referred to herein as the "Project Traffic
Improvements ") may include a Pro rata share of those improvements specifically
described on Exhibit C -2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Within six (5) weeks following the County's approval of either of the Development
Agreements, but no later than the date upon which the County first approves a tentative
subdivision map showing individual residential lots for any portion of the Dougherty
Valley, (i) the Parties to this Agreement shall cooperate in good faith to determine the
Developers' respective Toro rata shares (if any) of the cost of the improvements
described on Exhibit C -2 and establish a preliminary phasing program for any of those
improvements for which the Project will generate a need and (ii) the County shall
rug >>r. a fee, to be applied to development in the Dougherty Valley, to fund the
`k , z opers' respective ;pro rata shares of the cost of construction of such
improvements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and for all purposes under this
Agreement and otherwise, the Project's bra rata contribution to the traffic
improvements described on Exhibit C-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, shall be no more than is specified in, and shall be paid as described in,
Exhibit C -3.
3.7.2.3 Funding of Project Traffic Improvements. The
Development Agreements, and the conditions unposed by the County on any tentative
subdivision map approval for any portion of the Project, shall ensure that the
Developers will (i) construct and/or pay the cost of construction of any needed initial
Project Traffic Improvements (which cost shall be shared by the Developers in
proportiorns which shall ire. determined during the period described in Section 3.7.2.2
above) as they are required and (ii) pay their respective o rata shares of the cost of
any additional traffic improvements that may hereafter be identified by the Parties as
15.
to all Parties and approval and written consent of the County, each of the Developers
and (to the extent such modification or amendment would directly affect such Petitioner
City) San Raman or Danville, or both.
directly or through the Conferral Process, give good faith consideration to the
comments of San Ramon and Danville in connection with the County's consideration of
the following actions or approvals relating to the Dougherty Valley: (i) any and all
general plan amendments, amendments to the Specific Plan, approvals of and
amendments to development agreements, approvals of rezonings and preliminary and
final development plans, approvals and amendments of tentative subdivision maps and
the issuance of conditional use permits, (ii) the identification of service providers for
the Project, (iii) the identification of major public facilities not currently shown in the
Specific Plan, (iv) the approval of initial grading concepts and changes thereto
involving significant increases in the amount of grading, (v) changes in the phasing or
Iocation of any police or fine station, school, library, community center or senior center
shown on an approved tentative inap, and (vi) upon the specific written request of San
Ramon or Danville (if such request is received by County within fifteen (15) calendar
days after delivery of notice to San Ramon and Danville under Section 4.5.4 below),
any matter described in Section 4.5.4 below.
4.5..4 Actions Requiring Special Notice. The following minor
actions shall not require advance conferral with San Ramon or Danville; provided,
however, that San Ramon and Danville shall receive twenty (20) calendar days'
advance notice of the County's comideration of such actions, and be afforded an
opportunity to request review of such action by the DVOC. Such minor actions shall.
in- -I°ide: (i) lot line adjustments, (ii) approval of architecture and landscaping plans,
(iii) minor adjustments of permitted building height for individual structures, (iv) minor
increases in grading beyond that shown in an initial approved grading concept and
(v) changes in the pleasing or location of improvements 'within the area covered by a
single tentative subdivision map (other than those described in Subsection 4.5.3(vi)
above).
4.6 Actions of Third Parties.
4.6, l In General. The Parties to this Agreement acknowledge
that satisfaction of the Performance Standards (and the levels of service for services,
facilities and infrastructure sought to be achieved thereby) and the Traffic Service
Objectives may depend in certain instances on the actions of governmental or quasi -
governmental organizations that are not Parties to this Agreement ("Governmental
Third Parties "). The Parties to this Agreement therefore shall cooperate to promote the
implementation of any and all actions by Governmental 'Third Parties that may be
25.
c
EXHIBIT C -2
ADDITIONAL PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPRONT1, MENTS*
C -2.1. Bollinger Canyon Road, construct eight lanes from 1 -684 to Alcosta.
Windemere Parkway and the County line.
C -2.3. Camino Tassajara /Sycamore "galley Road intersection improvements,
widerv'restripe SB leg for 1 IT/RT lane and 1 LT lane.
C -2.4. Crow Canyon Road, widen from 6 to 8 lanes from I -680 to Alcosta_
C -2..a. 1 -680 northbound off ramp /Bollinger Canyon Road intersection
improvements. On NB leg, widen right turn radius, construct raised
island to convert curly right turn lane to a free right turn lane, restripe 2nd
right turn lane- to stay under signal control, and modify signal control.
C-2.6. AlcostalC.row Canyon Road intersection improvements. Acid exclusive
right turn F-B.
C -2.7. AlcostaiCrow Canyon Road intersection improvements. Add one NR
exclusive RT lane.
C -2.8, Camino R.amon!Crow Canyon Ruad intersection inaprovenients.
Widenirestripe 813 approach to one XF, one through lane, and 1 LT lane;
add an EB exclusive RT lane.
C-2.9. Crow Canyon Roadi1-680 NB off -ramp intersection improvements.
Intersection will be congested due to queues from adjacent intersections.
Add another RT lane on N13 off- ramp.
C- 2.101. 1 -680 SB ramps /Crow Canyon Road. Restripe to revise existing right
turn lane to provide shared right/left Kane.
C -2.11. Bollinger Canyon Rd. /Sunset Dr, intersection improvements. If
needed, reconfigure 'SB approach (Sunset Dr.) to provide one exclusive
left -turn lane, one exclusive through lane, and one "free" right -turn lane
to W B Bollinger Canyon Rd. Widen Bollinger Canyon Rd., west of
(C -2-i)
Sunset Dr., to provide dedicated curb lane to accept right -turns from SB
Sunset Dr.
C -2.12. Crow Canyon Road Noise Attenuation. As appropriate, construct
soundwalls along Crow Carryon Rd. between Dougherty Rd. and Alcosta
Blvd.
C -2.13. Crow Canyon Road, Camino 'Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road.
Provide for pavement overlays of these roads between the Dougherty
Valley project and I -680.
* Amendments to this list may be made upon the written agreement of the County,
the Developers and the Petitioner City in whose jurisdiction the relevant traffic
improvement is /would be located.
(C -2 -ii)
CITY OF DUBLIN
FISCAL YEAR 2015 -16
BUDGET CHANGE FORM
Budget Change Reference #:
From Un- Appropriated Reserves X Budget Transfer Between Funds
From Designated Reserves Other
Account Amount Account Amount
EXPENDITURES: EDTIF 1 - Streets CIP - Tassajara Road Realignment &
Widening
4301.9601.89101 (Transfer Out) $120,000.00
3600.9601.49999 (Transfer In) $1207000.00
st0116.4301 (Project Funding Source) $1207000.00
st0116. 9100.9101 (Salary /Benefit) $47250.00
st0116. 9200.9201 (Contract Services) $1157750.00
REASON, FOR, BUDGET CHANGE,
Budget adjustment for Tassajara Road realignment and design
Posted By:
CAUsers \agenda \Desktop \7.1 attch 6.xlsx 7.1 attch 6.xlsx
Date:
As Presented at the City Council Meeting 2/16/2016
RESOLUTION NO. XX - 16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * **
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MACKAY & SOMPS, CIVIL ENGINEERS,
INCORPORATED FOR TASSAJARA ROAD REALIGNMENT AND DESIGN PROJECT
WHEREAS, existing Tassajara Road alignment was designed to have six lanes; and
WHEREAS, staff from the Contra Costa County, the City of Dublin, the City of San Ramon,
and the Town of Danville, has concurred that ultimate capacity for Tassajara Road from North Dublin
Ranch Drive in the City of Dublin to Windermere Parkway should be four lanes, with the exception of
additional lanes at intersections; and
WHEREAS, the City has solicited proposals from Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc., to
complete the alignment and design work; and
WHEREAS, Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc., has demonstrated ability to perform said
design documents; and
WHEREAS, Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc., is available to perform work as specified.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin approves the Agreement with
Mackay & Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorizes the City
Manager to execute the Agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February 2016, by the following
vote:
AYES-
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTAIN-
ATTEST-
City Clerk
Mayor
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
MACKAY AND SOMPS, CIVIL ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of Dublin
( "City ") and Mackay and Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. ( "Consultant ") as of
Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement,
Consultant shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit
A at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or
inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date first noted
above and shall end on June 30, 2017, the date of completion specified in Exhibit
A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that
date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as
provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the
services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City's right to terminate
the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required
pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed
by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in
the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant
shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-
class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a
person practicing in Consultant's profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to
perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole
discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the
reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving
notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant
to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of
performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations
hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed
$115,750, notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's
proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In
the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as Exhibit A,
regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant
for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 1 of 15
The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner
specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for
duplicate services performed by more than one person.
Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under
this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required
hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant.
Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the
costs of contributions to any pensions and /or annuities to which Consultant and its employees,
agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such
contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month
during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and
reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the
following information:
• Serial identifications of progress bills; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first
invoice, etc.;
• The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
• A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of
prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the
Agreement, and the percentage of completion;
• At City's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable
time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the
person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description
of the work, and each reimbursable expense;
• The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by
Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant
performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total
number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee,
agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which
shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work
described in Exhibit A;
• The Consultant's signature.
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices
received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable
costs incurred. City shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that
complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 2 of 15
2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this
Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to
City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any
expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant
to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or
additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the
maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the
entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of
such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment.
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not
exceed the amounts shown on the following fee schedule:
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total
amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be
exceeded.
2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of
employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state
taxes.
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates
this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant
for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work
satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination.
Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs
incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform
any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement
until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator.
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall,
at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to
perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only
the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set
forth herein.
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may
be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with City employees and
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 3 of 15
reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time
of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be
obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not
limited to computer, long- distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and
reproduction facilities.
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this
Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall procure "occurrence coverage"
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in
connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents,
representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consultant shall provide proof satisfactory to
City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance
satisfactory in all respects to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required
by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be
included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence
work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the
subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to City. Verification of the required insurance
shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution.
It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader
than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and /or limits shall
be available to City as an additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and
limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the
broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available
to the named insured; whichever is greater. The additional insured coverage under the
Consultant's policy shall be "primary and non - contributory" and will not seek contribution from
City's insurance or self - insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 12. In the event
Consultant fails to maintain coverage as required by this Agreement, City at its sole discretion
may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by Consultant. Failure to exercise
this right shall not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later. Each insurance policy shall
include an endorsement providing that it shall not be cancelled, changed, or allowed to lapse
without at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice to City of such cancellation, change, or
lapse.
4.1 Workers' Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense,
maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability
Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant.
The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability
Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely
on a self - insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program
of self - insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code.
Determination of whether a self - insurance program meets the standards of the
Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The
insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self - insurance
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of and
[DATE]
Page 4 of 15
is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers,
officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under
this Agreement.
An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been
given to the City. Consultant shall notify City within 14 days of notification from
Consultant's insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided or reduced in coverage
or in limits.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall
maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the
term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit
coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this
Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an
Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work
to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall
be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall
include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from
bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and
damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this
Agreement, including the use of owned and non -owned automobiles.
4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at
least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
occurrence form CG 0001. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad
as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 Code 1
( "any auto ").
4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the
insurance coverage or added as an endorsement to the policy:
City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be
covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the
following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on
behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of
Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant;
premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles
owned, leased, or used by the Consultant. The coverage shall
contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded
to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 5 of 15
b. The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis,
and not on a claims -made basis.
An endorsement must state that coverage is primary insurance with
respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers, and that no insurance or self - insurance maintained by
the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the
coverage.
d. Any failure of CONSULTANT to comply with reporting
provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to CITY
and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.
An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be canceled
except after thirty (3 0) days' prior written notice by certified mail,
return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Consultant
shall notify City within 14 days of notification from Consultant's
insurer if such coverage is suspended, voided or reduced in
coverage or in limits.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall
maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance
for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an
amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the
licensed professionals' errors and omissions.
4.3.1 Any deductible or self - insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per
claim.
4.3.2 An endorsement shall state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits, except after
thirty (3 0) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt
requested, has been given to the City.
4.3.3 The policy must contain a cross liability or severability of interest clause.
4.3.4 The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverages
are written on a claims -made form:
The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be
before the date of the Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 6 of 15
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be
provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement
or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with
another claims -made policy form with a retroactive date that
precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide
extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after
completion of the Agreement or the work. The City shall have the
right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any
extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant
cancels or does not renew the coverage.
d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to
the City prior to the commencement of any work under this
Agreement.
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be
placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.
4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this
Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and
with original endorsements effecting coverage required herein. The
certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by
a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies and endorsements. Failure to exercise this right shall
not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later.
4.4.3 Subcontractors. Consultant agrees to include with all subcontractors in
their subcontract the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement
including the Indemnification and Insurance requirements to the extent
they apply to the scope of the Subcontractor's work. Subcontractors hired
by Consultant agree to be bound to Consultant and the City in the same
manner and to the same extent as Consultant is bound to the City under the
Contract Documents. Subcontractor further agrees to include these same
provisions with any Sub - subcontractor. A copy of the Owner Contract
Document Indemnity and Insurance provisions will be furnished to the
Subcontractor upon request. The General Contractor shall require all
subcontractors to provide a valid certificate of insurance and the required
endorsements included in the agreement prior to commencement of any
work and will provide proof of compliance to the City.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 7 of 15
4.4.4 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance
requirements, upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits, and
forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the
City's interests are otherwise fully protected.
4.4.5 Deductibles and Self - Insured Retentions. All self - insured retentions
(SIR) and /or deductibles must be disclosed to the City for approval and
shall not reduce the limits of liability. Policies containing any self - insured
retention provision and /or deductibles shall provide or be endorsed to
provide that the SIR and /or deductibles may be satisfied by either the
named insured or the City.
4.4.6 Excess Insurance. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement
may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed
to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and
non - contributory basis for the benefit of City (if agreed to in a written
contract or agreement) before City's own insurance or self - insurance shall
be called upon to protect City as a named insured.
4.4.7 Notice of Reduction in Coverage. In the event that any coverage
required by this section is reduced, limited, or materially affected in any
other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at
Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than five
days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to
provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent
and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of
the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have
and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach:
■ Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for
such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment
that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold
any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements
hereof, and /or
■ Terminate this Agreement.
Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. To
the maximum extent allowed by law, Consultant shall indemnify, keep and save harmless the
City, and City Councilmembers, officers, agents and employees against any and all suits, claims
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 8 of 15
or actions arising out of any injury to persons or property, including death, that may occur, or
that may be alleged to have occurred, in the course of the performance of this Agreement, but
only to the extent caused by a negligent act or omission or wrongful misconduct of the
Consultant or its employees, subcontractors or agents. Consultant further agrees to defend any
and all such actions, suits or claims but only to the extent caused by Consultant's negligent act or
omission and pay all charges of attorneys and all other costs and expenses arising therefrom or
incurred in connection therewith; and if any judgment be rendered against the City or any of the
other individuals enumerated above in any such action, Consultant shall, at its expense, satisfy
and discharge the same. Consultant's responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations
shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed
by law. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in
addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this
Agreement.
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing
services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the
California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as
an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the
payment of any employee and /or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of
Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any
penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City.
Consultant /Subcontractor's responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall
survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by
law.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement,
Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of
City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of
Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of
personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have
the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services
rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or
federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and
any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this
Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive
any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment
by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to
any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and /or employee
contributions for PERS benefits.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 9 of 15
6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall
have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity
whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied,
pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this
Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall
comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be
funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any
subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which
City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that
Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses,
permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally
required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and
warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors
shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of
this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to
practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and
any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement
valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate,
on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or
mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual
orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor,
bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any
services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant
shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and
requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment,
contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this
Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive
obligations required of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract
approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of
and
[DATE]
Page 10 of 15
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause
upon written notification to Consultant.
Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to City and
shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for
services performed to the effective date of termination; City, however, may
condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City any
or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and
other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the
City in connection with this Agreement.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of
this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension
shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein.
Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City
shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the
maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized
by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse
Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension
period.
8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed
by all the parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that
this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based
upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience,
and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City
for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and
competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any
interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and
provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal,
without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and
all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant
shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of
the terms of this Agreement, City's remedies shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 11 of 15
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and
any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this
Agreement;
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A
not finished by Consultant; or
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work
described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the
amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if
Consultant had completed the work.
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data,
maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies,
specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or
any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement
and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City.
Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination
of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other
materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to
this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily
suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final
approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are
confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent
of both parties. Consultant shall be permitted to keep copies of said documents.
9.2 Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers,
books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or
documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and
disbursements charged to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three
(3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment
to the Consultant to this Agreement.
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of
this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for
inspection, audit, and /or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon
oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section
8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to
the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of
and
[DATE]
Page 12 of 15
any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the
Agreement.
Section 10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an
action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in
addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set
such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under
this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested
exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Alameda or in the
United States District Court.
10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision
of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this
Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in
whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the
validity of any other provision of this Agreement.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision
of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or
any other term of this Agreement.
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the
benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports,
written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is
available at equal or less cost than virgin paper.
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose
activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of
location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined
in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section
81000 et seq. City acknowledges Consultant is engaged by other Clients with
interests related to the Scope of Work and confirms such engagement is not a
conflict of interest.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to
this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest
in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090
et seq.
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 13 of 15
Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous
twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If
Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the
previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any
manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this
Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et.seq., the entire
Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for
services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of
expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid
to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it
may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code §
1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State
of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus
group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written
materials.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by the City
Manager ( "Contract Administrator "). All correspondence shall be directed to or
through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee.
10.10 Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to:
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of and Page 14 of 15
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract
administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design
specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped /sealed
and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report /design
preparation. The stamp /seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of
Registered Professional with report /design responsibility," as in the following
example.
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report /design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement
between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
Attest:
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
John Bakker, City Attorney
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of
and
CONSULTANT
[NAME, TITLE]
[DATE]
Page 15 of 15
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract
administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design,
specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be staniped/sealed
and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report /design
preparation. The stamp /seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of
Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following.
example.
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire: and integrated agreement
between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
CITY OF
[NAME, TITLE]
Attest:
[NAME], City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
[NAME], City Attorney
CONSULTANT
Bob La hells, Engineering Manager
(ver.2015)
Consulting Services Agreement between [DATE]
City of Dublin and Mackay and Somps, Civil Engineers, Inc. Page 15 of 15
F, yv`i`~~" > A
MACKAY&SOMPS
EN�GINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
January 21, 2013
Revised March 30,2013
Revised November 6, 20,15
MrGaryNulsimh — DhectomfPublic Works
City o�fDublin
10,O Civic Plaza
Dublin,CA 94568
He Tasm,ajana Road — Realignment Prelim, Design Services
Dear Gary,
MacKay &5ompsis pIeased to present this proposal 10 provide professional cmnsukjnQ services to the City mf
Dublin for the initial preliminary design of the Tassajara Road realignment / ultimate widening project.
As you are aware, MacKay &6ompa has significant knowledge mf the project area and has been engaged with
the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County over the past several years |n discussions regarding the conceptual
ultimate alignment ofTmsmajanaRoad. Through these on-going discussions, vue have assisted theCityand
County in developing and analyzing several conceptual horizontal alignment alterniatives, Our efforts have given
usa unique understanding mf the design issues and challenges from both the City and County's perspective.
Based mm our meetings and coordination with the City and County, KHaoKaV& Smmpm|m providing this prVpmsa|to
assist with Initial preliminary design, with a focus on the priority design elements that will build a foundation for
the basis of design report and eventually the preliminary and final design, The enclosed scope and fee proposal
outlines the initial preliminary design tasks that were prioritized |n our "Pna|imm[mary Scope C}utU|ne" provided on
Dec, 19, 2012. The attached updated scope and fee proposal reflects the expanded scope of work and our
current fee schedule.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this proposal and firmly believe that our experience and expertise
working with the City of Dublin and our significant knowledge in the project area makes us, uniquely qualified for
the TassajaraRoad project. VVevvou|dbe happy toainswmr any questions you might have regarding our
proposal,
Sincerely,
MACKAY & SOMPS
Bob E. LaSheUs, PE
Engineering Manager
[c� Mark D. McClellan
' SINCE 1g53-
eM4o FRANKLIN DR�vE,SUITE B. PLEASANT3M^ CALIFORNIA 94588-3308 PHONE: (928)22o-008Q FAX: (925)1225-0698
OFFICES: PLEASANTON ROSemLus
M PIT, Win if] Nqm;mol fil
Tassajaino Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin ° November G'2O15
Table of Contents ........................... .--._........ ...--............... ........... .-. ...... ............... __—...... ...............
.J
Background/Project Understanding .... -....... _..~__........................................... .~.~~ ................................. _1
Background....................... ............................... ............ —...... ....... ........... -....... .... ................................... .1
ProjectUnderstanding_ ...... ................. -_..__...... _-..... ........... - ............................................................ 1
Exhibit"A"— Scope of Services ............................. ......... -............. ._...... ...... — ........................ .. ... ... ......... .......
Task/t Project Coord1nation--- ... ................................ ................ ........... ........ ....... ..._~....................... '2
Task B: Preliminary R Analysis & Base Mapping /Design Constraints ._—_ ...............................
Task C: Initial Preliminary Design @ Cast Estimate ... ... —_—_.................. .__........~._.__....... _.................. 4
Exh| bit °8"—Va|ueof Services ........................ ........................................................................................................... 5
Task /k Project Coordination ... ................ ....... ........ _.................................. ......... -_...................... .................. 5
Task B:Preliminary Analysis 8k Base Mapping / Design Constraints .................... .---.............. 5
Task C:Initial Pre�minary Design & Cost Estimate . ... ........ --- ........... .............. ............ ....... ~...... ................... 5
MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers Inc. - Page I
Tassajmra Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin, ° November 6, 2015
"ITU���
Tassajara Road from North Dublin Ranch Rd to Fallon Road in the City of Dublin and to Windermere Parkway in
Contra Costa County is a challenging portion of an im:portant regional corridor that connects southern Contra
Costa County and Interstate 50O. The vehicular and pedestrian/bike traffic along this corridor has increased
significantly, especially since the Windermere Development was built and Windermere Parkway opened. This
secMmnofTassajaraRmadpmqu|reovv|dem1m8andrea[|8mmamttommcommudatethecurnentandhmturetmsff|c
safely.
The proposed development project, Moller Ranch, |n the City of Dublin borders Contra Costa County and fronts
Tassajara Road. 4 condition mf the development isto improve approximately 1,5O81-ftofTamsajama Road along
the property frontage, inciuding replacement/extens ion of the existing culvert crossing of Moller Creek under
Tassajara Rd. These "frontage" improvements encompass a significant portion of the Tassajara Road
realignment project from the county line to Fallon Rd. Furthermore, it is along this frontage and across the
county line where the realignment / widening project's biggest challenges exist.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Itb our understanding at this time,, that the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County wishes to engage a design
consultant to assist with the initial preliminary design analysis required to establish a preferred horizontal and
vertical design alignment (precise alignment) for the segment of Tassjara Road from the intersection of North
Dublin Blvd, east to the intersection with Fallon Road then approximately one mile north to Winclemere Parkway
(shown on the Limit of Work exhibit in Appendix B.) Preliminary design for the portion of roadway outside mf
the City limits being necessary to allow the horizontal and, more critically, the vertical design to be transitioned
and connected to Contra Costa County's portion of the roadway realignment.
The initial preliminary engineering design effort at this time will be prioritized to focus on the critical design
elements for the roadway that are required to assess right-of-way needs and develop programmatic project
coats as well as establish a foundation forthe basis of design report that will be used In the future final design
of the roadway. It is anticipated that significant coordination between the City and County will be required for
this effort and will be facilitated through MacKay &Somps^services.
MacKay & Somps, Civil Engineers Inc. * Page I
Tassaarm Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin * November 6,ZOl5
Two key aspects to a successful project are a clear and concise understanding of the project scope, and
implementation of that scope through proactive management ofdesign. With MacKay & Smmps' experience Uo
the City of Dublin, our significant local knowledge in the project area and our veteran project management we
are confident that we can provide the services outlined below efficiently and cost effectively,
1, Stakeholder Coordination
K8acKay& Somps will engage both the City ofDublin and Contra Costa County Public Works tm establish m
clear understanding of project goals, schedule and various design parameters as described in Task B - Design
Constraints. Coordination will occur through mn initial kick-off meeting, upto four N*additional
coordination / initial design review meetings and through on-going e-mail/phone communication.
Coordination will include, but not be limited to:
° Project schedule
�
Total project limits within City and County
�
Consideration of potential project phasing /integration between City and County
w
Ultimate roadway width and amenities |n City and County
w |nl1|a| Right-of-way acquisition concerns
2. Preliminary Coordination with other Agencies
&NmcKay& Somps, will coordinate with other affected Agencies such aa0SRSD and PG&E inapreliminary
capacity to determine enough design information to inform our programmatic cost estimating.
3. Precise Alignment Cost/Benefit evaluation
MacKay & Somps to coordinate with City and Contra Costa County to provide a rough cost/benefit
evaluation of the proposed alternative precise alignments generated bw our preliminary design effort |nTask
Cbe|ow. A summary of the rough cost / benefit evaluation will be provided to the City and Contra Costa
County for their consideration of the proposed precise alignment. The evaluation will include such design
elements as: right-of-wayommstna1nts/avai|ab1||ty, grading/retaining wall needs/costs, Resource Agency
parm|tdm0cmnatrahots/adwantages.
4. CEQA Coordination with City's Consultant
MacKay & Somps will coordinate with the City of Dublin's CEQA consultant inapreliminary capacity to
determine enough environmental information to inform our programmatic cost estimating. Kisanticipated
that this task will also include providing the City's consultant with exhibits tobe used |n city CE[\A
documents.
Task A - Deliverables —Comt/BemefitEva|uadonSummoary
— Preliminary CECIA Exhibits
MacKay &Somps Civil Engineers Inc. ° Page 2
Tassajara Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin - November 6'2O1G
TAW B: PRELIMINARY RIIGHT-OF-WAY ANALYSIS, & BASE MAPPING / DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
l. B@se 1Na0pin�
� Researcha!ndrev|ev«ofreconddocuments,dt|emapoho,eto.todetenn[ne|knhuofparmelsamGaoanttm
existing and proposed roadway alignment.
"
Develop Base mapping of parcels adjacent to roadway alignment and generate right-of-way base map
file lnAutnCAD (version 2O14).
Readily available topographic information will be used. No additional topography is anticipated.
2. Preliminary �Right-of-Way Analysis
MacKay &Sormps will provide assistance needed for a preliminary right-of-way analysis, including:
• Based on preliminary horizontal and vertical design alignments developed in Task C below, determine
the project needs for dg acquisition aa well aa temporary and permanent easements for
grading and construction,
• Generate preliminary right-of-waV acquisition summary and exhibits, graphicaHy depicting right-of-way
take areas and acreages, as well as required easement limits/areas. Phase 1 acquisitions will be
evaluated and identified an the ROW Analysis Map.
3. Design Constraints
k4aoKay& Somps will perform the following cursory evaluations prior to the Initial Preliminary Design to
identify and summarize potential Design Constraints and to confirm design parameters:
• Confirm total project limits and tie-in locations.
• Review current Traffic Modeling analyses / reports with City/ County (as provided by City and County)
to confirm that ultimate traffic demand numbers reflect currently anticipated future growth and tm
confirm volume / capacity calculations used to establish ultimate roadway width.
• Confirm ultimate roadway width and cross section specifics in both the City and County.
• Determination of where potential roadway width transitions will occur.
� RUgh1-of-way constraints and/or specific acquisition concerns.
�
Confirm horizontal and vertical design criteria, design speeds and roadway standards between City and
[oumty.
=
Environmental Limitations, — Based on the preliminary horizontal and vertical design in Task C, identify
the approximate project limits uf grading disturbance and estimate the approximate acreage ot
potential environmental impact area. This environmental evaluation effort will be integrated with the
initial preliminary design such that design modifications th:at can potentially reduce the impact area can
be identified and incorporated into the initial preliminary design.
Note: potential environmental impact acreages will be "raw" acreages only based ons|nmp�eestimated
area mf impact and will not speak tm required mitigation ratios.
Limitations and areas of opportunity for Storm Water Quality Management. Exa}uat|onofthe
preliminary design and surrounding topography, property ownership, etc. to identify areas of constraint
and areas of opportunity for conveying and treating storm water runoff to meet current Municipal
Regional Permit —[.3requirements. (Includes only preliminary calculations of total proposed
impervious surface area and rm|e-of-thumb sizing for required water quality treatment area.)
Consideration of existing overhead PG&E power lines and evaluation uf potential constraints an
roadway realignment, as well as prefirninary research of available Rule 20 funding.
Task B - Deliverables
0 Project Base Map
* Project Constraints Map
* 65% & 100% Pretiminary ROW Analysis Map
MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers Inc. - Page 3
Tessaana Road Preliminary Design Services, DubDn° November G'2U15
TASK C. INITIAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN & CmsT ESTIMATE
1. Initial Preliminary Design
The initial preliminary engineering design effort at this time will be prioritized to focus on the critical design
elements for the roadway that are required to assess right-of-way needs and develop programmatic project
costs, as well as establ'ish the founclation of the basis of design report that will be used in the future final
design of the noadwoy. The |n|t|ai| preliminary design will focus omthe following:
• Identify and document range mf horizontal alignments considered.
• ConMrmconoeptua|hmrUamntm|m||gmmentmsmhownmnTract01O2VeytimgTemtat[veK8apfmr"&1mUer
Ranch", dated October 2012, for compliance with design criteria established above. Modify/refine
horizontal alignment tm generate preferred horizontal alignment.
• Develop conceptual vertical alignment alternatives — prepare, up to three vertical alignment alternatives,
based oo the confirmed horizontal alignment,
• Evaluate earthwark and grading impacts for each of the three vertical alignment alternatives.
• Evaluate / refine vertical alignments applying design constraints and analysis described in Task B above,
to generate preferred preliminary vertical alignment.
• Prepare initial preliminary design plan and profiles for preferred' horizontal / vertical alignment.
2. Programmatic Cost Estimate
MacKay & Somps will use the completed initial preliminary design in conjunction with the
analysis and design constraints evaluation to prepare programmatic cost estimate. The programmatic cost
estimate will provide a rough order of magnitude cost of construction for the ultimate Tas,sajara Road
alignment improvements,
� 65% &1OD% Preliminary Precise Plan Line
� 65%&1O0�% Conceptual Plan and Profile
�
Memo summarizing alternatives, ainalysis and preferred alignment selection
Programmatic Cost Estimate
MacKay &Sonqm Civil Engineers Inc. ° Page 4
Tassajara Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin ° November 6,3U15
TASK DESCRI PTI ON ESTIMATED FEES
Task A: Project Coordination
Project
city
County
1. Stakeholder Coordination
$
4,500
$ 3,225
$
1,275
2, Preliminary Coordination with other Agencies
$
4,000
$ 2,866
$
1,134
3. Precise Alignment cost/benefit evaluation
$
1,,750
$ 1,254
$
496
Subtotal Task A:
$
11,750
8,420
3,330
Task B., Preliminary Right-of-waiy Analysis & Base Mapping Design
Constraints
2. Preliminary Right-of-Way Analysis
$
10,000
$ 7,166
$
2,834
3. Design Constraints
$
9,500,
6,807
2,693
Subtotal Task 8:
$
27;SOO
$ 19,705
7,795
Task C: lnitial'PreliminarV Design & Cost Estimate
1. Initial Preliminary Design
$
62,000
$44,427
$ 17,573
2. Programmatic Cost Estimate
$
14,500
$ 101,390
$
4,110
Segment I(nil�e�s)
Segment 2/milem
Total Length (miles)
Estimated Total Fees: $ 115�,7501 $82,942| $32,800
221 $ 115,750
Q% $ -
$32'808
28.396
COMPENSATION!
The Scope and Fees above are based on our experience and our general understanding of the proposed services
required and discussed with the Client. Those fees proposed uwa Time and Materials basis are due tothe
uncertain or undefined nature of these tasks and to assist the Client in keeping the costs down. lRmeamd
Material fees will be treated as a Nmt-to-Exceed amount without authorization from the Client. The fees shown
above will be invoiced on a monthly basis based on the time and materials spent or on the percentage of fixed
fee services completed.
MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers Inc, * Page 5
Tossajam Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin " November 6i2O15
HOURLY RATE FEE SCHEDULE — APRIL 1, 2015 TO MARCH 31, 2018
-RATES SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT APRIL 1, 2016-
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
Pn/mC/p^LENGImesm/PmmopAL SURVEYOR ............... .......................... ................ .................... .. ... .._$25U.0O
PER HOUR
ENGINEERING/PLANNING MANAGsR_.'_~-_-_---.---_.—_-----_._-------$22O.0OPcnH0un
SENIOR PROJECT Ems|NEsn/PLANwER/LANo SURVEYOR .... ....... ......................................................... .$l90J]O
PER HOUR
SENIOR EMG|mssR/PuNwsn/LANu5VnVEYOn... ... . ......... — .... — ...... --........... ................... ..... -.$IU4O8PE
RHVUR
ASSOCIATE Emo|wssn/PL4mM ER/LAND SURVEYOR ........ ................................ ........................... ...............
$166.O0 PER HOUR
AsssrxwTENGIweER/P ..... ........... ....... ............. ....... --.................... ..................
$134l0 PER HOUR
JUNIOR Ewmwscm/Pu*mwsn/GuxvsYme ...... .......... ........ . ......... ......... —.---_----...................
$2l4.0O PER HOUR
FIELD WORK SUPERVISOR .......................................... .............. ._.............. ............ .----.... .$146.08
PER HOUR
PRINCIPAL TscHNxcIAm— .............................. .......... —............... .~ .......... ........... ................ ..—....... .$144.00
PER HOUR
SENIOR TECHNICIAN .. ...... ~.~.............. . ........... ._--................ ...................... ............ ................
$12B�00 PER HOUR
TECHNICIAN............ ....... ..~...... ..—...~.-...~._—_.--_............. .......... .......................... .$1Q0I0
PER HOUR
ADMINISTRATIVE A5uSTANT .......... ........ _.._._.......... —___............................ ....................... ..$9O.0O
PER HOUR
CLERICAL........ ......................... . ............. ~.~—..........---._----_.......... _—........ ......
$72J]O PER HOUR
FIELD
1 MAN FIELD PARTY* ........ _— .... _............................. -.____ ... ................ .......................... ..... $168.0U PER HOUR
2 MAN FIELD PARTY* .......... ............. ............ ............. — ....... ................... ___ ....... ........ .. ....... ..,$272.D8 PER HOUR
3 MAN FIELD PARTY* ............ ............ ............................. ........................................................ .... $34Ol0 PER HOUR
*INCLUDES GP6 EQUIPMENT WHEN APPROPRIATE
OTHER�
PREMIUM FOR REQUIRED OVERTIME ...... ........... . ........... .............................. REGULAR HOURLY RATE PLUS 25%
MILEAGE ....................................... — ........... .—..—. ....... ................... .. PER IRS, STANDARD MILEAGE RATE
MacKay &3mmpsCivil Engineers Inc. ° Appendix A
Tmssalara Road Preliminary Design Services, Dublin e November ti2D1S
-_-__
Segment 2
` \\ \ Limit nfWork
Segment I
cp
�
U
�
U
r
/
<-/
-
n^�on�m~
`
MacKay & Samps Civil Engineers |mc" Appendix B