addendum to the final negative …...addendum to the final negative declaration / initial study...

ADDENDUM TO THE

FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION / INITIAL STUDY

NOVEMBER 2012

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, Ca 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

ADDENDUM TO THE SUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT

FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................... 1

Environmental Setting ...................................................................................................................... 1 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 1 Existing SuperLoop Operations ....................................................................................................... 4

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT ........................................ 5 Summary of Existing CEQA Documentation ................................................................................... 7 CEQA Requirements for an Addendum ........................................................................................... 7 Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation for the Proposed Modifications .................... 8

Section 15162 – Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations ......................................... 8 Section 15164 – Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration ....................................... 10

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 11 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 12 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................................... 14 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 16 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 16 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 16 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 17 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 17 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................................. 18 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 18 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................. 19 Public Services ............................................................................................................................... 19 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 20 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 21

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 23

i

Addendum to the SuperLoop Transit Project Final Negative Declaration/Initial Study November 2012

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

TABLE PAGE NO. 1 Criteria Pollutant Significance Thresholds ..................................................................................... 13 2 Estimated Construction Emissions ................................................................................................ 14 3 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ....................................................................................... 15 4 Year 2014 Intersection Conditions ................................................................................................. 22 5 Year 2030 Intersection Conditions ................................................................................................. 22 FIGURE ON OR FOLLOWS PAGE 1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................................... 2 2 Project Vicinity Map and Proposed Station Locations ..................................................................... 3 3 Existing SuperLoop Operations ....................................................................................................... 4 4 Proposed Station Design ................................................................................................................. 6 APPENDIX A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis B Traffic Impact Study


ADDENDUM TO THE SUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT

FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION/INITIAL STUDY INTRODUCTION

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) proposes to modify plans for implementation of the SuperLoop Transit Project (herein referred to as the Project). This Project was described in the SuperLoop Transit Project Final Negative Declaration/Initial Study (Final ND/IS), adopted by SANDAG in August 2007. The purpose of this Addendum is to provide environmental clearance of the proposed Project modifications under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). This Addendum describes the Project, describes the proposed modifications, summarizes existing CEQA documentation, addresses appropriate CEQA documentation for the Project modifications, evaluates Project-specific environmental impacts, and makes a determination that an addendum is the appropriate level of CEQA documentation for the proposed Project modifications. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Environmental Setting The Project is located in the University City community within the City of San Diego, California (Figures 1 and 2). The University City community is characterized by high intensity mixed-use development anchored by the University of California San Diego (UCSD) campus and the Westfield University Towne Centre (UTC) regional shopping center. Research/corporate offices, medical centers, and urban residential development also characterize the community. Land uses adjacent to the SuperLoop route include a mixture of medium to high density residential developments, neighborhood and regional shopping centers, high-rise hotels, high technology commercial office and industrial campuses, schools, hospitals, and park areas. Interstates 5 and 805 also are located in the immediate Project vicinity (Figure 2). Project Characteristics The Project entails implementation of an approximately nine-mile circular bus route that includes new bus stations, transit priority features, improvements at select intersections, and deployment of specialized buses. The SuperLoop route extends along portions of Nobel Drive, Genesee Avenue, Regents Road, Arriba Street, Palmilla Drive, Lebon Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive, Gilman Drive, Voigt Drive, Campus Point Drive, Medical Center Drive, Health Sciences Drive, Executive Drive, and Judicial Drive (refer to Figure 2). The route traverses a portion of the UCSD campus. The first 17 SuperLoop stations identified in the 2007 Final ND/IS are being constructed along the route. Construction of permanent SuperLoop bus stations began in August 2011, and it is anticipated that the bus stations will be completed in fall 2012. Stations are constructed largely within existing road rights-of-way and are accessible via the main travel lanes and adjacent sidewalks. The stations include curbs, seating, shelters, electronic signage, lighting, enhanced pavement, windscreens, railings, and other transit furnishings (e.g., advertisement kiosks and trash receptacles). In order for the SuperLoop to operate effectively and safely, several traffic control improvements are provided along the route within the City of San Diego and the UCSD campus. These improvements consist of implementation of transit signal priority (TSP) treatments, installation of new traffic signals, removal of existing stop signs, and construction of new turn lanes.

1

Poway

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Vista

Escondido

Otay

Chula Vista

Santee

San Marcos

Encinitas

El Cajon

La Mesa

CoronadoNational

City

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

SolanaBeachDel Mar

San Diego

Camp Pendleton

LakeSan Marcos

Lake Hodges

Lake Wohlford

Lake RamonaLake Poway

Miramar Reservoir

San VicenteReservoir

Lake Murray

SweetwaterReservoir

Lake Jennings

Otay Reservoir

Pacific Ocean

San Diego Bay

Santee Lakes

SutherlandReservoir

Lake Henshaw

El Capitan Reservoir

Loveland Reservoir

Vail Lake

O'Neill Lake

Barrett Lake

Tijuana

UNITED STATESMEXICO

Dulzura

Julian

Ramona

Warner Springs

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

Project Site

San Diego

AlpineLa Jolla Aª

Aª

WÛ

WÛ

WÙ

AÒ

A©

A£

Fallbrook

?z

A©

?z

A

A©!"$

56

!"a$

?z

?h%&s(

!"$ AÛ

AÀ

!"_$Aù

!"a$

!"_$

AÀ

?j

!"$ A×

?j

%&s(A×

I:\ArcGIS\D\DEA-04.06 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\Addendum\Fig1_Regional.mxd -JP

Figure 1SUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT

Regional Location MapJob No: DEA-04.06 Date: 11/28/12

µ8 0 84

Miles


2

") ")

")")

")

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( Berino Court

Gilm

an D

rive

Nobel Drive

Rege

nts R

oad

Gene

see A

venu

e

Nobel Drive

La Jolla Village Drive!"$

%&s(

Executive Drive

Judicial Drive

Arriba StreetPalm

illa Dr

iveLe

bon D

rive

Campus Point Drive

Villa La Jolla

Drive

Health Sciences Drive

Medic

al

Center Drive

Gilm

an D

rive

Voigt Drive

DEA 04.06 I:\ArcGIS\D\DEA-04.06 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\Addendum\Fig2_Vicinity.mxd 11/28/12 -JP

Figure 2SUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT

Project Vicinity Map and Proposed Station Locations

SuperLoop Route") Proposed New SuperLoop Stations!( Proposed TSP

1,500 0 1,500750Feet

µ


3


Existing SuperLoop Operations In June 2009, SANDAG launched an interim SuperLoop service along the portion of the SuperLoop route west of Genesee Avenue, operating SuperLoop vehicles at designated bus stops, but without Project bus station or TSP improvements. In September 2010 as part of a regional reconfiguration of bus routes, the interim service was extended to the La Jolla Colony neighborhood, south of Nobel Drive and west of Genesee Avenue, to bus stops previously served by Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Route 30 which was realigned to La Jolla Village Drive. Interim SuperLoop service is provided by MTS Routes 201 and 202. Route 201 travels in a counterclockwise direction, and Route 202 travels in a clockwise direction. Existing bus stops are provided along the interim SuperLoop route and consist of pole-mounted signage and benches (at most stops). Operation of the full SuperLoop route began on June 10, 2012 and includes the existing interim service area, as well as the portion of the SuperLoop route east of Genesee Avenue (refer to Figure 2). Route 204 travels in clockwise direction for the portion of the SuperLoop route east of Genesee Avenue and connects to Routes 201 and 202 at the University Town Center shopping center. Figure 3 shows the route and bus stop locations of the interim service as configured in June 2012. The SuperLoop operates seven days a week between 5:45 AM and 10:00 PM, with peak period (Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 10:30 AM and 2:00 PM to 5:30 PM) headways of 10 minutes and off-peak headways of 15 minutes.

Figure 3

EXISTING SUPERLOOP OPERATIONS

4


PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT Proposed modifications to the Project consist of the construction of five new permanent bus stations in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood to replace existing bus stop signs on poles and benches for waiting passengers. SuperLoop bus stations are proposed at the following locations:

Regents Road/Arriba Street (two new bus stations) Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive (two new bus station) Nobel Drive/Regents Road (one new bus station)

These proposed SuperLoop stations are in addition to those that were evaluated in the Final ND/IS. Two bus stations would be constructed at Regents Road/Arriba Street and Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive, and one station would be constructed at Nobel Drive/Regents Road. At Regents Road/Arriba Street, one station would be constructed on the east side of Regents Road (northbound) just north of the intersection, and one station would be constructed on the north side of Arriba Street (westbound) just west of the intersection. At Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive, one station would be constructed on the east side of Lebon Drive (northbound) just north of the intersection, and the other station would be constructed on the west side of Palmilla Drive (southbound) just south of the intersection. The proposed station at Nobel Drive/Regents Road would be constructed on the west side of Regents Road (southbound) just south of the intersection. The new stations would include the same features as those that have been, or are currently in construction, including curbs, seating, shelters, electronic signage, lighting, enhanced pavement, windscreens, railings, and other transit furnishings (e.g., advertising kiosks and trash receptacles). The location of the proposed bus stations are shown on Figure 2, and Figure 4 illustrates the design of the proposed bus stations. In addition to the permanent bus stations, proposed modifications also would include installation and operation of TSP at existing traffic signals at the following intersections along the SuperLoop route in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood:

Nobel Drive/Lebon Drive Lebon Drive/Palmilla Drive Palmilla Drive/Arriba Street Regents Road/Arriba Street Regents Road/Berino Court Nobel Drive/Regents Road

TSP modifies the normal traffic signal operation process to improve transit schedule reliability. TSP improves on-time performance of a transit system by reducing the random delays associated with signal operations. The existing traffic signals at these intersections along the SuperLoop route would be coordinated and timed to allow transit vehicles to request an extended green light phase when running behind schedule, in order to recover back on schedule. Installation of TSP requires replacement of the receiver on the existing traffic signal arm to allow the signal to sense TSP requests and replacing the signal controller in the controller cabinet to allow the traffic signal to process TSP requests with appropriate control of the traffic signal lights. The location of these intersections is shown on Figure 2. TSP at the La Jolla Colony intersections would be essentially the same equipment and operation as TSP that has already been installed at the other intersections along the SuperLoop route.

5

I:\ArcGIS\D\DEA-04.06 SuperLoop\Map\ENV\Addendum\Fig4_StationDesign.indd -JP Proposed Station DesignSUPERLOOP TRANSIT PROJECT

Figure 4

Station DesignStation Design

Super Loop Transit ProjectSuper Loop Transit Project6

Station at NightStation at Night

Super Loop Transit ProjectSuper Loop Transit Project


6


Summary of Existing CEQA Documentation In March 2007, SANDAG completed a Draft ND/IS for the Project. The Final ND/IS was adopted by SANDAG in August 2007. The Final ND/IS addressed potential environmental effects of the Project with regard to the following environmental resource categories: (1) aesthetics, (2) agricultural resources, (3) air quality, (4) biological resources, (5) cultural resources, (6) geology and soils, (7) hazards and hazardous materials, (8) hydrology and water quality, (9) land use and planning, (10) mineral resources, (11) noise, (12) population and housing, (13) public services, (14) recreation, (15) transportation/traffic, and (16) utilities and service systems. The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts and, thus, no mitigation measures were required or identified in the Final ND/IS. CEQA Requirements for an Addendum In accordance with Section 15164(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Specifically, these conditions include:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is

undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or

negative declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the

previous EIR;

c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in

the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

7


In order to utilize an addendum as the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed modifications to the Project, SANDAG, as the lead agency, must make a finding that changes to the Final ND/IS are necessary and that the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects. Determination of Appropriate CEQA Documentation for the Proposed Modifications The following discussion lists the applicable subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and provides justification for SANDAG to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the Project, based on the environmental analysis that follows this section. Section 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) “When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent

EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one of more of the following:”

(1) “Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the

previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;”

SANDAG proposes to modify the Project, as described in this Addendum to the adopted Final ND/IS. SANDAG proposes to construct five additional permanent SuperLoop stations and install TSP at existing traffic signals in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood. As discussed in the Environmental Analysis section of this Addendum, no new significant environmental effects would occur. The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts, so the proposed modifications would not increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. (2) “Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is

undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or”

As stated above, SANDAG proposes to modify the Project, as described in this Addendum to the adopted Final ND/IS. Because SuperLoop bus service operates within the La Jolla Colony neighborhood, the Project is proposed to be modified to provide new bus stations at the La Jolla Colony stop locations where the stops are currently served by bus route signs and benches. In addition, existing traffic signals at intersections along the SuperLoop route in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood would be equipped with TSP. The proposed modifications would not result in new significant environmental effects, as concluded in the Environmental Analysis section of this Addendum. The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts, so the proposed modifications would not increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. No major revisions to the Final ND/IS are required. (3) “New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been

known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) “The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the

previous EIR or negative declaration;”

8


The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts. As determined in the Environmental Analysis section in this Addendum, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts.

(B) “Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;”

The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts, so the proposed modifications would not increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects. As determined in the Environmental Analysis section in this Addendum, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts.

(C) “Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or”

The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts and therefore, no mitigation measures were identified or required. Similarly, no project alternatives were analyzed as there were no significant impacts associated with the project.

(D) “Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”

No mitigation measures are proposed because the Final ND/IS and this Addendum conclude that the Project and proposed modifications would not result in potentially significant environmental effects. Therefore, identification of mitigation or other feasible alternatives is not required. (b) “If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after

adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subsection (a). Otherwise, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.”

Subsequent to adoption of the Final ND/IS in August 2007, the routing of the SuperLoop service was modified by MTS along with other regional transit services to provide better overall transit service to the University City community. To provide consistent passenger facilities throughout the SuperLoop route, the Project is proposed to be modified by constructing five new SuperLoop stations in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood to replace the existing bus signs and benches. In addition, existing traffic signals at intersections along the SuperLoop route in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood would be equipped with TSP. These proposed modifications are the subject of this Addendum to the Final ND/IS. Based on the analysis in this document, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant environmental effects. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND.

9


(c) “Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.”

None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur due to the proposed modifications. No subsequent negative declaration is required. Section 15164 - Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) “The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR

if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”

This section of the State CEQA Guidelines does not apply, as an EIR was not prepared for the proposed Project. (b) “An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical

changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.”

Minor changes to the adopted Final ND/IS are necessary; however, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, an addendum to the adopted Final ND/IS is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project modifications. (c) “An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the

final EIR or adopted negative declaration.” This Addendum will be attached to the Final ND/IS and maintained in the administrative record files at SANDAG. (d) “The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative

declaration prior to making a decision on the project.” SANDAG will consider this Addendum with the Final ND/IS prior to making a decision on the proposed Project modifications. (e) “A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162

should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.”

This document provides substantial evidence for SANDAG records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the proposed Project modifications.

10


ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This environmental analysis evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Project modifications relative to the environmental topical areas that were previously examined in the Final ND/IS, as well as the topical areas in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, and evaluates whether the proposed modifications would result in any new significant environmental effects. As previously stated, no potentially significant impacts resulting from the Project were identified in the Final ND/IS. Forestry Resources and Greenhouse Gases were added as new topical areas in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as of March 18, 2010, after approval of the Final ND/IS. No impacts related to Forestry Resources would occur since the Project is located in an urbanized area that does not contain forest land; therefore this issue is not addressed further in this Addendum. The issue of Greenhouse Gases is addressed below in this section. For each topical area, the conclusions of the Final ND/IS are briefly summarized followed by a discussion of the environmental effects to the topical area resulting from the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications to the Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects. This determination is based on the analysis below. Aesthetics The Final ND/IS concluded aesthetics impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant. The Project site is located in a highly urbanized area with existing lighting and no scenic views of the ocean. No designated state scenic highway views, scenic vistas, historic structures/landmarks, or rock outcroppings are impacted by the Project, nor will the Project adversely affect the overall character of the area. The Final ND/IS identified that construction of the SuperLoop stations could remove some ornamental street side landscaping, but replacement landscaping would be installed where necessary. No associated significant impacts were identified. The Final ND/IS also identified that minor increases in nighttime lighting would occur as a result of new traffic signals and station lighting, but impacts were assessed as less than significant since lighting would be directional and/or shielded. No new significant aesthetics impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. No designated scenic vistas or resources would be impacted, as none exist along the SuperLoop route. The design of the SuperLoop stations includes low-profile and transparent elements, including metal framed fixtures and glass panels (refer to Figure 4). The addition of the proposed bus stations in a developed area currently served by transit service would be compatible with the existing visual environment. Installation of TSP to existing traffic signals would involve replacing the receiver on the existing traffic signal arms and replacing the signal controller in the controller cabinet. No substantial change to the visual environment would occur since traffic signal equipment already exists at the intersections and the new equipment would look essentially identical to equipment being replaced. Lighting would be provided at the new SuperLoop stations, but would be directional to illuminate only the station and the adjacent roadway. Spillover into adjacent properties behind the stations would not occur. Proposed station lighting would consist of safety and theme lighting systems. Safety lighting would be installed on the top of the windscreens and would consist of five, 20-watt compact fluorescent lights directed towards the station waiting area. Theme lighting would consist of blue light-emitting diode (LED) lights (25 watts) in the overhead canopies and directed downward. Additional low-wattage lighting would be provided at each station to illuminate the information/advertising kiosk, and the electronic signage

11


would include lighted text. An electronic variable message sign would be installed at each station, which would consist of a two-foot-wide, double-sided sign with yellow LED lights that would display bus arrival information or other operational messages such as service interruptions. Messages would be displayed during the normal SuperLoop operating hours. Each station also would include an approximately three-foot-long branding sign that would display the SuperLoop logo on both sides and would be backlit by low-wattage blue LED lights. Both of these signs would be mounted on sign poles. The proposed informational signage associated with the Project modifications are not prohibited by City of San Diego ordinances (refer to the Land Use section for additional details). Figure 4 shows a photosimulation of an illuminated station at night. As shown, lighting is limited to the station and the roadway, and would not illuminate adjacent properties. Lighting impacts resulting from the proposed modifications would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the Project would not result in any new significant aesthetics impacts. Agricultural Resources The Final ND/IS determined that the Project would not impact agricultural resources because none occur along the SuperLoop route or in the surrounding area. Similarly, no agricultural resources occur within or near the La Jolla Colony neighborhood where the new permanent SuperLoop stations or installation of TSP at existing traffic signals are proposed. No new significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Air Quality The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. The Final ND/IS concluded that emissions generated during construction and operation of the Project would not exceed applicable air quality standards. The Project also does not conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, applicable air quality plans (Regional Air Quality Strategy and portions of the State Implementation Plan) since it would be consistent with the General Plan that these air quality plans are based upon. While five additional SuperLoop stations would be constructed and TSP equipment would be installed at existing traffics signals, no change in operational emissions would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. SuperLoop buses are already operating in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood, and the proposed modifications would not change the number and/or type of buses along the SuperLoop route. Therefore, operational emissions would be the same as the existing condition. No new significant long-term operational air quality impacts would occur. An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis was prepared in support of this Addendum to evaluate emissions associated with construction of the new SuperLoop stations (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for the SuperLoop Modifications; July 16, 2012). The following analysis summarizes the air quality portion of the report, which is contained in Appendix A. Criteria Pollutants Federal and state laws regulate the air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify concentrations of criteria pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health and welfare are anticipated. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as

12


primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and most inhalable particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS or CAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is classified as a nonattainment area for ozone under NAAQS (8-hour) and CAAQS, as well as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) under CAAQS. Significance thresholds for air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants are based on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District emissions thresholds. The threshold for PM2.5 is based on significance criteria from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD 2011). Significance thresholds used for the construction emissions analysis are identified in Table 1.

Table 1 CRITERIA POLLUTANT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions (pounds per day)

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 250 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 250 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROCs) 137 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55

Source: HELIX 2012 Construction Emissions The construction period for the proposed stations was conservatively assumed to be six months and that all five proposed stations would be constructed simultaneously. It was also assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at each station location for eight hours per day, five days per week during this construction period. Anticipated construction equipment would include, but is not limited to, concrete saws, concrete trucks/mixers, paving machines, a crane, and other miscellaneous construction equipment. Installation of TSP at existing traffic signals would involve replacing the receiver on traffic signal arms and the signal controller in the controller cabinet, which would generate negligible air emissions. Therefore, installation of TSP is not considered a construction emission source and is not factored into the calculation of estimated construction emissions.

13


During construction of the proposed bus stations, emissions from diesel combustion equipment and fugitive dust would be generated. Construction emissions were estimated using CARB’s OFFROAD2007 emission factors, using equipment horsepower and load factors from the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook for construction equipment. The estimated emissions generated during construction are presented in Table 2 and represent the maximum daily emissions for the duration of the construction period of the proposed new bus stations.

Table 2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

lbs/day

Emission Source CO ROC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Curbs Construction 12.58 1.46 27.53 2.98 1.73 1.58Pavement Construction 12.58 1.46 27.53 2.98 1.73 1.58Shelter Construction 7.07 1.43 4.66 0.04 0.17 0.15

TOTAL 32.23 4.35 59.72 6.00 3.63 3.31Significance Criteria 550 137 250 250 100 55Significant? No No No No No No

Source: HELIX 2012 As shown in Table 2, construction emissions of criteria pollutants would be well below the applicable significance thresholds. In addition, construction emissions would be temporary and would be localized within the immediate Project vicinity. Therefore, construction emissions associated with the proposed modifications would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Diesel exhaust particulate matter is known to the state of California as a carcinogenic compound. The risks associated with exposure to substances with carcinogenic effects are typically evaluated based on a lifetime of chronic exposure, which is defined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association (CAPCOA) Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (CAPCOA 1993) as 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year, for 70 years. During construction of the stations, diesel exhaust particulate matter would be emitted from heavy equipment used in the construction process. Because diesel exhaust particulate matter is considered to be carcinogenic, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust emissions has the potential to result in adverse health impacts. Due to the short-term nature of station construction (i.e., six months), there would be no associated health risk due to long-term exposure of diesel exhaust emissions during project construction. No associated significant air quality impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant air quality impacts. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Because the Final ND/IS was adopted before it was required to include an analysis of potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts in CEQA documents, the Final ND/IS does not include an analysis of GHG emissions. As such, an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis was prepared in support of this Addendum to evaluate emissions associated with construction of the new SuperLoop stations (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis for the SuperLoop Modifications; July 16, 2012). The following analysis summarizes the greenhouse gas emission portion of the report, which is contained in Appendix A.

14


As noted with regard to Air Quality, the proposed modifications would not affect the number, type, or operation of buses along the SuperLoop route. In addition, the indirect GHG emissions associated with operation of the bus stations (e.g., lighting, electronic signage) would be negligible. Therefore, potential GHG emissions associated with project operations are not further analyzed. GHG emissions would be generated during the construction period of the Project largely from fuel combustion from construction equipment, worker commute travel, and hauling truck trips. Construction-related GHG emissions result from CO2, CH4, and N2O that is released during the combustion of gasoline or diesel fuel in on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. When accounting for GHG, all types of GHG emissions are expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or millions of metric tons (MMT). To date, there is no local, regional, state, or federal regulation establishing a threshold of significance to determine project-specific impacts related to GHG emissions. Based on guidance in CAPCOA report CEQA & Climate Change, dated January 2008, an annual generation rate of 900 MT of GHG emissions has been used to determine when further GHG analysis is required. The CAPCOA report references the 900 MT guideline as a conservative threshold for requiring further GHG analysis and mitigation. This emission level is based on the amount of vehicle trips, the typical energy and water use, and other factors associated with projects. If a project would exceed the annual 900 MT screening threshold, then preparation of a detailed quantitative GHG analysis would be required. GHG emissions generated during the construction period are summarized in Table 3 below. Installation of TSP at existing traffic signals would involve replacing the receiver on traffic signal arms and the signal controller in the controller cabinet, which would generate negligible air emissions. Therefore, installation of TSP is not considered a construction GHG emission source and is not factored into the calculation of estimated construction GHG emissions. For construction emissions, the CAPCOA guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized over 30 years to account for their contribution to project lifetime GHG emissions. Amortized over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute 3.47 MT per year of CO2e emissions. Since this is well below the 900 MT screening threshold, no detailed quantitative GHG emissions analysis is required and construction of the proposed modifications would not result in significant GHG emissions impacts. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

Table 3 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS

Metric tons/year

Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Curbs Construction 29.17 0.03 0.15 29.35Pavement Construction 29.17 0.03 0.15 29.35Shelter Construction 45.23 0.04 0.20 45.47

Total 104.1730-Year Amortized Total 3.47

Source: HELIX 2012

15


Biological Resources The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not impact biological resources. This conclusion was based on the fact that the Project is located entirely within developed areas. No sensitive biological resources, such as native communities, wetlands, sensitive plants or animals, or biological preserves, occur along the route. The proposed new station and TSP equipment locations also would be located within developed areas containing no sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not impact cultural resources. No historical resources will be affected, and the Project site has previously been disturbed and graded. Since the Project involves only minor earthwork limited to areas that were previously disturbed, no impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources were assessed in the Final ND/IS. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final ND/IS, the proposed modifications would not include new areas that have not been disturbed as a result of urban development so no impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources are anticipated. Additionally, no historical resources would be affected. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts to cultural resources. Geology and Soils The Final ND/IS concluded geology and soils impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant. No active faults traverse the Project area. Compliance with applicable seismic design specifications will ensure that seismic-related impacts are less than significant. Surficial and underlying formational materials along the Project route exhibit low risk for geologic hazards; therefore, associated potential impacts to unstable geologic units or soils were assessed as less than significant in the Final ND/IS. The proposed modifications to the Project would not change the impact conclusions in the Final ND/IS related to geology and soils. There are no faults at the locations of the proposed new stations. Compliance with seismic design standards would be required, which would avoid seismic-related impacts. According to the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study (Grid 30), the proposed new stations are located within areas designated with geologic hazard categories 25, 52, and 54. Two of the proposed stations (Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive) are located within category 25, which pertains to slide-prone formations, but with neutral or favorable geologic structure. The proposed stations at Regents Road/Arriba Street (north side of Arriba Street) and Nobel Drive/Regents Road (west side of Regents Road) are located within category 52, which applies to other level areas with favorable geologic structure and a low risk for geologic hazards. The proposed Regents Road/Arriba Street station on the east side of Regents Road is located at the very edge of an area designated in the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study as category 54, which pertains to steeply sloping terrain with a moderate risk for geologic hazards. The proposed station within this area is located just north of the Regents Road/Arriba Street intersection within the developed road right-of-way where there are no steep slopes. Therefore, no associated geologic hazards impacts related to unstable geologic units or soils would occur. In addition, no ground disturbance would be required for the installation of the proposed TSP equipment at existing traffic signals along the SuperLoop route in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood. No new significant geology and soil impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.

16


Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Construction-related hazardous materials are used during Project construction; however, impacts due to accidental releases are avoided through implementation of best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The operation of the Project does not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Final ND/IS identified several listed hazardous materials sites located in the Project area, most of them with a closed-case status. Given the minimal grading required for the Project, the Final ND/IS concluded there was no potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater. The Final ND/IS also concluded that the Project does not create hazards related to air traffic, emergency access, or wildfires. The proposed modifications would not result in new significant hazards/hazardous materials impacts. As stated above, BMPs would be implemented during construction to avoid accidental releases of hazardous materials. The proposed stations and TSP equipment also would not involve the use of hazardous materials. No listed sites are located in the immediate area of the proposed SuperLoop stations. The proposed modifications would not adversely affect emergency routes. The proposed new bus stations and TSP equipment would be constructed along existing roadways, but no road closures or detours would occur during the construction period. As with the other bus stations along the SuperLoop route, the proposed new stations are located within the designated Airport Influence Area of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, as identified in the MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, but not within the designated Safety Zones. No new associated hazards impacts would occur. No wildlands are located along or in close proximity to the SuperLoop route, including the new stations. No new hazards impacts related to wildland fires would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality The Final ND/IS concluded that Project water quality impacts due to short-term construction-related erosion/sedimentation and long-term operational storm water discharge would be less than significant. Short-term water quality impacts related to erosion/sedimentation were assessed as less than significant based on conformance with existing regulatory requirements. Long-term impacts would be avoided through compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of required BMPs. Since the Project does not use groundwater or result in a substantial net increase in impervious surfaces, no significant impacts to groundwater or runoff rates or volumes were assessed in the Final ND/IS. No impacts related to flooding were assessed, and the potential for flood inundation from a dam failure, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow was considered very low to nonexistent in the Final ND/IS. The proposed modifications would have similar hydrology and water quality impacts compared to those analyzed in the Final ND/IS. Compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of required BMPs (as part of regulatory permit requirements) would avoid short-term construction-related erosion/sedimentation and long-term operational storm water discharge impacts. The proposed modifications would not require the use of groundwater or substantially change impervious areas such that drainage patterns or runoff rates or volumes would substantially change. The proposed stations and TSP equipment would not create new flood or flood inundation impacts since they would be located within areas designated as outside of the 500-year floodplain (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 1601). Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant hydrology and water quality impacts.

17


Land Use and Planning The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in impacts related to land use. The Project route is located within an urbanized, mixed-use area within the University community of San Diego. Provision of a transit route and stations within the Project area was determined to be a compatible and beneficial use. The Project is located within existing roadways that currently include bus operations. No new roads, structures, or other improvements are proposed that would divide or separate neighborhoods or physically divide an established community. The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. Consistent with the conclusions of the Final ND/IS, the proposed modifications would not result in land use and planning impacts. The construction of five new bus stations along an existing transit route and TSP equipment would remain consistent with regional and local land use plans that promote transit, including the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2010 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP), City of San Diego General Plan, and University Community Plan. The SuperLoop project is identified in the 2050 RTP and listed in the 2010 RTIP. The Mobility Element of the City of San Diego General Plan contains goals and policies promoting increased local bus transit services. The Transportation Element of the University Community Plan recommends a transit loop system that connects major commercial developments, high density residential areas, hospital and scientific research facilities, and the UCSD campus. The City of San Diego ordinances are generally silent regarding informational signs posted by public agencies and safety messages, and the City has changeable message signs for public service and transportation within the City right-of-way, and no geographic-specific standards were identified for the University City area. Therefore, informational signage associated with the Project modifications would not be prohibited or regulated by the City of San Diego. MTS has an agreement with the City regarding advertising signage on existing bus shelters and benches and advertising on the proposed bus stations would be managed by MTS in the same manner as the other SuperLoop bus stations already under construction. Additionally, the proposed modifications would not physically divide the community. The proposed stations and TSP equipment would be constructed along existing roadways in a developed community that is currently served by transit, including the interim SuperLoop service in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant land use and planning impacts. Mineral Resources The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in impacts to mineral resources based on its mineral resource classification and lack of mineral resource recovery operations in the Project area. Moreover, areas along or adjacent to the SuperLoop route are not designated for such uses in applicable land use plans. The proposed modifications would not change these conclusions based on the same reasons. The new station locations and intersections where TSP would be installed at existing traffic signals are not located within designated mineral resource recovery areas and no mineral resource operations occur in the Project area. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant mineral resources impacts.

18


Noise The Final ND/IS concluded that noise impacts during Project construction would be less than significant based on potential changes in noise levels not exceeding Federal Transit Administration (FTA) impact threshold levels, as well as not exceeding, as well as not exceeding required compliance with City of San Diego noise criteria. The Final ND/IS also concluded that operational noise generated by the Project would not cause levels to exceed City criteria at sensitive receptors. Noise levels at some of the analyzed receptors in the Final ND/IS already exceeded City criteria, but the analysis in the Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not increase noise levels (24-hour average) at any of these locations. The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project also would not increase noise levels in excess of those allowable pursuant to FTA criteria. Therefore, the Final ND/IS concluded that noise impacts resulting from the Project would be less than significant. The proposed modifications would add five permanent SuperLoop bus stations and TSP equipment at existing traffic signals in an area currently providing SuperLoop service at locations with existing bus stops, and would not change the amount of vehicular or bus traffic along the route. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not change the existing traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the new stations. No new significant operational noise impacts would occur. During construction of the proposed new stations, a temporary increase in noise would occur in the vicinity of the proposed new station locations. Construction noise generated by installation of TSP to existing traffic signals would be negligible since it would involve replacing the receiver on traffic signal arms and the signal controller in the controller cabinet. Construction activities would be required to comply with the City of San Diego Noise Ordinance (set forth in Section 59.5.0404 of the Municipal Code), which limits construction to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. Construction noise levels also must not exceed a 12-hour average of 75 decibels at residentially zoned properties. Required compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would avoid significant impacts. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant noise impacts. Population and Housing The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. No housing is proposed or will be displaced, and the Project does not provide substantial new employment to foster in-migration. No major changes will be made to the existing circulation system, no new roads or road extensions are proposed, and the Project will connect to existing utility lines. The proposed modifications would not change the impact conclusions of the Final ND/IS related to population and housing. The proposed new stations and TSP equipment would not affect existing housing or businesses. The new stations and TSP equipment would be constructed within a developed area already served by infrastructure. No new roads, road extensions, or utility infrastructure are proposed. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant population and housing impacts. Public Services The Project is located in a developed community currently served by existing public services, including fire and police protection, schools, and parks. The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not generate population growth, and therefore would not substantially increase demand for these public services.

19


The proposed modifications also would not substantially increase demand for public services, as they would not generate population growth in the developed Project area. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant public services impacts. Recreation The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project could provide increased opportunities for local park access and therefore, could lead to an increase in demand for park and recreation services at parks along the SuperLoop route. However, it is unlikely that any such increase would be large enough to require facility upgrades or increased services. Overall, impacts related to recreational facilities were assessed as less than significant in the Final ND/IS. The proposed modifications would not change the impact conclusions of the Final ND/IS related to recreational facilities. Recreational facilities near the proposed new SuperLoop stations include Doyle Community Park and Recreation Center (located approximately 0.25 mile to the north) and La Jolla Colony Park (located approximately 0.20 mile to the west). As discussed above, improved access to local parks in the community may be provided by the SuperLoop route, but no significant impacts to existing recreational facilities would occur, particularly because bus stops already occur at these locations. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant impacts related to recreational facilities. Transportation/Traffic The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not result in any significant traffic impacts to roadway segments or intersections under near-term (2010) or buildout (2030) conditions. No construction-related traffic impacts were identified, nor does the Project increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Proposed traffic improvements conform to City standards. The Final NS/IS concluded that traffic conditions would improve with implementation of the Project, thereby decreasing traffic hazard potential. The proposed modifications would add five permanent SuperLoop bus stations in an area currently with existing bus stations providing SuperLoop service, and would not change the amount of vehicular or bus traffic along the route. The proposed modifications however would include installation and operation of TSP at existing traffic signals at the following intersections along the SuperLoop route in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood:

Nobel Drive/Lebon Drive Lebon Drive/Palmilla Drive Palmilla Drive/Arriba Street Regents Road/Arriba Street Regents Road/Berino Court Nobel Drive/Regents Road

The addition of TSP would change the operating conditions of intersections in La Jolla Colony neighborhood by allowing for slightly extending green light phases in the event SuperLoop vehicles fall behind schedule. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared in support of this Addendum to evaluate existing and future traffic conditions in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood with the addition of TSP (Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Traffic Impact Study; November 2012). The following analysis summarizes this report, which is contained in Appendix B.

20


21

Significance thresholds for traffic impacts are based on City of San Diego traffic significance thresholds (City of San Diego 2011). Significance thresholds used for the intersection analysis include the following:

The level of service (LOS) at an intersection would decrease from A through D to E or F as a result of the Project.

Any intersection affected by the Project would operate at LOS E or F under direct or cumulative conditions and the project would increase the delay at any intersection that would operate at LOS E by more than 2.0 seconds or by more than 1.0 second at any intersection that would operate at LOS F.

Tables 4 and 5 show the average vehicle delay and LOS at each of the analyzed intersections under Year 2014 and Year 2030 conditions. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better under 2014 and 2030 conditions, except for the Regents Road/Nobel Drive intersection. This intersection would operate at LOS F with and without the Project in the PM peak period under 2014 and 2030 conditions; however, the increase in delay would not exceed the significance threshold of greater than 1.0 second (for intersections at LOS F) under 2014 (0.8 seconds) or 2030 (0.7 seconds) conditions. Therefore, Project impacts to the Regents Road/Nobel Drive intersection would be less than significant. No significant traffic impacts would occur to the other five intersections because they would operate at LOS D or better with the Project. During the construction period, some construction traffic trips would be generated by construction vehicles and construction workers. The number of construction vehicles and workers required to construct the stations and install the TSP equipment would not be substantial such that intersections and roadways would experience increased congestion. No road closures or detours would be required and access to adjacent businesses would be maintained during the construction period. No associated significant traffic impacts would occur. In addition, no significant traffic impacts related to design hazards resulting from the proposed modifications would occur. The design of the proposed SuperLoop stations is the same as those addressed in the Final ND/IS and include features to separate transit patrons at the stations from the abutting roadway, such as seating, shelters, and curbs. Operation of the TSP would be controlled by existing traffic signals, which would clearly direct traffic movements through the intersections. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant transportation/traffic impacts. Utilities and Service Systems The Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not impact water supply, wastewater, and solid waste facilities, and impacts to storm water facilities were assessed as less than significant. The Project is located in a developed area served by existing utilities. Connections to existing water lines are required to provide for irrigation of Project landscaping repaired or replaced as part of the Project, but new or expanded water facilities are not required. No wastewater is generated by the Project. Some trash is generated by transit patrons using the SuperLoop stations, but trash receptacles will be provided at each station. The amounts of solid waste generated by the Project are not large enough to adversely affect regional landfills. In addition, the Final ND/IS concluded that the Project would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns. Runoff will be collected in existing or replaced drainage facilities and does not require additional storm drain facilities.


Table 4

YEAR 2014 INTERSECTION CONDITIONS

Intersection

AM Peak Period PM Peak PeriodYear 2014without Project

Year 2014 with Project ∆

Delay (sec)

Signif-icant?

Year 2014without Project


Delay (sec)

Signif-icant? Delay

(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay

(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS

Nobel Drive/Lebon Drive 24.8 C 24.9 C 0.1 No 28.0 C 28.0 C 0 No Lebon Drive/Palmilla Drive 4.5 A 5.7 A 1.2 No 5.2 A 6.7 A 1.5 No Palmilla Drive/Arriba Street 6.8 A 9.2 A 2.4 No 7.1 A 10.2 B 3.1 No Regents Road/Arriba Street 22.9 C 25.4 C 2.5 No 19.0 B 20.8 C 1.8 No Regents Road/Berino Court 16.0 B 20.3 C 4.3 No 8.7 A 9.9 A 1.2 No Regents Road/Nobel Drive 35.0 C 38.7 D 3.7 No 85.3 F 86.1 F 0.8 No

Source: KOA Corporation 2012 ∆ V/C = difference in V/C between Year 2014 with Project conditions and Year 2014 without Project conditions. sec = seconds

Table 5 YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION CONDITIONS

Intersection

AM Peak Period PM Peak PeriodYear 2030 without Project


Delay (sec)

Signif-icant?

Year 2030 without Project


Delay (sec)

Signif-icant? Delay

(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay

(sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS

Nobel Drive/Lebon Drive 25.9 C 26.1 C 0.2 No 31.7 C 32.0 C 0.3 No Lebon Drive/Palmilla Drive 4.8 A 5.8 A 1.0 No 5.7 A 7.0 A 1.3 No Palmilla Drive/Arriba Street 7.5 A 9.9 A 2.4 No 8.2 A 11.5 B 3.3 No Regents Road/Arriba Street 24.3 C 28.3 C 4.0 No 24.9 C 28.0 C 3.1 No Regents Road/Berino Court 18.0 B 20.4 C 2.4 No 9.5 A 10.5 B 1.0 No Regents Road/Nobel Drive 36.0 D 40.6 D 4.6 No 104.9 F 105.6 F 0.7 No

Source: KOA Corporation 2012 ∆ V/C = difference in V/C between Year 2030 with Project conditions and Year 2030 without Project conditions. sec = seconds

22

Addendum to the SuperLoop Transit Project Final Negative Declaration/Initial Study September 2012

The demand for utilities and service systems associated with the proposed modifications would be a minimal increase over the demand identified in the Final ND/IS. No new landscaping is proposed at the five proposed stations, only minimal repair or replacement of existing landscaping that would be adjacent to stations, so there would be no additional water demand. The proposed modifications also would not generate wastewater. The amount of solid waste generated at the new SuperLoop stations and runoff collected in existing storm drain facilities would not substantially change with the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in new significant utilities and service system impacts. CONCLUSION This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, and it documents that none of the conditions or circumstances that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, exists in connection with the currently proposed Project. No major revisions would be required to the Final ND/IS as a result of the proposed modifications. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND is not required, and the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project modifications is this Addendum to the SuperLoop Transit Project Final Negative Declaration/Initial Study. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at SANDAG offices.

23


24

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ANALYSIS

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 [email protected] 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com

Memorandum

To: Mr. Brian Hausknecht SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101

Date: July 16, 2011 From: Michael Slavick, HELIX Senior Air Quality Specialist cc: Tim Belzman, HELIX Project Manager Subject: Addition of Five Proposed SuperLoop Transit Stations Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis PURPOSE This air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission analysis has been prepared for the proposed construction of five new permanent bus stations in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood of the SuperLoop Transit project (proposed project) in the City of San Diego. This memorandum evaluates potential air quality and quantifies GHG emissions associated with construction of the SuperLoop stations at the following locations:

• Regents Road/Arriba Street (two new bus stations) • Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive (two new bus station) • Nobel Drive/Regents Road (one new bus station)

This analysis addresses only construction emissions associated with the new SuperLoop stations. Since SuperLoop buses are already operating in the La Jolla Colony neighborhood, and the addition of the proposed new bus stations would not change the number and/or type of buses along the SuperLoop route, operational emissions would be the same as the existing condition. Therefore, no operational emissions were analyzed for this project.

Memorandum (cont.)HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 [email protected] 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The SuperLoop project entails implementation of an approximately nine-mile circular bus route that includes new bus stations, transit priority features, improvements at select intersections, and deployment of specialized buses. The SuperLoop route extends along portions of Nobel Drive, Shoreline Drive, Renaissance Avenue, Towne Centre Drive, Genesee Avenue, Regents Road, Arriba Street, Palmilla Drive, Lebon Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive, Gilman Drive, Voigt Drive, Campus Point Drive, Medical Center Drive, Health Sciences Drive, Executive Drive, and Judicial Drive. The route traverses a portion of the University of California San Diego (UCSD) campus. Figure 1 shows the SuperLoop route.

Figure 1

SuperLoop Route

Page 2 of 18


In June 2009, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) launched an interim SuperLoop service along the portion of the SuperLoop route west of Genesee Avenue. In September 2010, the interim service was extended to the La Jolla Colony neighborhood, south of Nobel Drive and west of Genesee Avenue. In June 2012, SuperLoop service was expanded to the portion of the SuperLoop route east of Genesee Avenue. Interim SuperLoop service is provided by Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Routes 201, 202, and 204. Route 201 travels in a counterclockwise direction (west of Genesee Avenue), and Route 202 travels in a clockwise direction (west of Genesee Avenue). Route 204 travels in clockwise direction for the portion of the SuperLoop route east of Genesee Avenue and connects to Routes 201 and 202 at the University Town Center shopping center. Existing bus stops are provided along the interim SuperLoop route and consist of pole-mounted signage and benches (at most stops). The SuperLoop operates seven days a week between 5:45 AM and 10:00 PM, with peak period (Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 10:30 AM and 2:00 PM to 5:30 PM) headways of 10 minutes and off-peak headways of 15 minutes. The first 17 SuperLoop stations identified in the 2007 Final Negative Declaration/Initial Study (ND/IS) are being constructed along the route. Construction of permanent SuperLoop bus stations began in August 2011, and it is anticipated that the bus stations will be completed in summer 2012. Stations are constructed largely within existing road rights-of-way and are accessible via the main travel lanes. The stations include curbs, seating, shelters, electronic signage, lighting, enhanced pavement, windscreens, railings, and other transit furnishings (e.g., advertisement kiosks and trash receptacles). The proposed new SuperLoop stations are in addition to those that were previously evaluated in the Final ND/IS. Two bus stations would be constructed at Regents Road/Arriba Street and Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive, and one station would be constructed at Nobel Drive/Regents Road. At Regents Road/Arriba Street, one station would be constructed on the east side of Regents Road (northbound) just north of the intersection, and one station would be constructed on the north side of Arriba Street (westbound) just west of the intersection. At Palmilla Drive/Lebon Drive, one station would be constructed on the east side of Lebon Drive (northbound) just north of the intersection, and the other station would be constructed on the west side of Palmilla Drive (southbound) just south of the intersection. The proposed station at Nobel Drive/Regents Road would be constructed on the west side of Regents Road (southbound) just south of the intersection. The new stations would include the same features as those that have been, or are currently in construction, including curbs, seating, shelters, electronic signage, lighting, enhanced pavement, windscreens, railings, and other transit furnishings (e.g., advertising kiosks and trash receptacles). The locations of the proposed new SuperLoop stations are identified in Figure 1.

Page 3 of 18


AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERNS Historically, air quality laws and regulations have divided air pollutants into three broad categories: “criteria air pollutants,” “toxic air contaminants,” and “greenhouse gases.” Criteria air pollutants are a group of common pollutants regulated by the federal and state governments by means of ambient air quality standards based on criteria regarding health and/or environmental effects of pollution (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2010). Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are substances for which no ambient air quality standards have been established, but are known or suspected of having potential adverse health effects, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects. GHG includes natural and anthropogenic (human) emissions that contribute to the natural greenhouse effect on global climate change. Criteria Air Pollutants Federal and state laws regulate the air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 required the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which identify concentrations of criteria pollutants in the ambient air below which no adverse effects on the public health and welfare are anticipated. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized as primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and most inhalable particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) including lead (Pb) and fugitive dust are primary air pollutants. Of these CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. Ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established the more stringent California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the NAAQS or CAAQS for a particular pollutant are considered to be “nonattainment areas” for that pollutant. Toxic Air Contaminants In 1983, the California Legislature enacted a program to identify the health effects of TACs and to reduce exposure to these contaminants to protect the public health. The Health and Safety

Page 4 of 18


Code defines a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the Federal Act (42 USC Sec. 7412[b]) is a TAC. Under State law, the California EPA, acting through the CARB, is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines the substance is an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Greenhouse Gases Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Parts of the Earth’s atmosphere act as an insulating blanket of just the right thickness, trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range. The “blanket” is a collection of atmospheric gases called GHGs based on the idea that the gases also “trap” heat like the glass wall of a greenhouse. These gases, mainly water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), O3, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), all act as effective global insulators, reflecting back to earth heat and infrared radiation. These gases allow solar (shortwave) radiation into Earth’s atmosphere, but absorb longwave radiation. Greater concentrations of GHGs absorb more longwave radiation, thus further warming Earth’s atmosphere. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature. Without these natural GHGs, Earth’s temperature would be about 61°F cooler. Emissions from human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Human-caused emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without acknowledging the contribution from human activities (IPCC 2007). Studies indicate that the effects of global climate change may include rising surface temperatures, loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, and more drought years. Understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has improved over the past decade and predictive capabilities are advancing. However, scientific uncertainties remain surrounding the response of the Earth’s climate system to combinations of changes, particularly at regional and local scales. Consequently, the scientific community has systematically developed a range of scenarios that are based on computer programs, model parameters, climatic processes, and social and economic responses. The result is a range of potential future conditions for key variables such as peak summer temperature, the occurrence of extreme weather events, effects of aerosols, changes in clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic

Page 5 of 18


circulation. Due to the complexity of the Earth’s climate system and inherent uncertainty in the future actions of human beings, predictions of future climatic conditions will always include a range of possible outcomes. The State of California has been at the forefront of developing regulations to address GHG effects on global climate change. California law defines GHGs as any of the following compounds: CO2, CH4, N2O, PFCs, and SF6 (Health & Safety Code, Section 38505(g)). CO2, followed by CH4 and N2O, is the most common GHG that results from human activity. California’s major initiatives for reducing climate change or GHG emissions are outlined in the discussion below. State Assembly Bill 1493 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, adopted September 2002, requires the development and adoption of regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases” emitted by noncommercial passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used primarily for personal transportation in the State. Although setting emission standards on automobiles is solely the responsibility of the USEPA, the CAA allows California to set state-specific emission standards on automobiles if the State first obtains a waiver from the USEPA. The USEPA granted California that waiver on July 1, 2009. Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05, issued June 2005, established GHG emissions targets for the State, as well as a process to ensure the targets are met. As a result of this Executive Order, the California Climate Action Team, led by the Secretary of the California EPA, was formed. The California Climate Action Team reported several recommendations and strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets established in the Executive Order. The GHG targets are as follows:

• By 2010, reduce to 2000 emission levels; • By 2020, reduce to 1990 emission levels; and • By 2050, reduce to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) commits the State to achieving the following:

• 2000 GHG emission levels by 2010 (which represents an approximately 11 percent reduction from “business-as-usual”); and

• 1990 levels by 2020 (approximately 28.3 percent below “business-as-usual”).

Page 6 of 18


To achieve these goals, AB 32 mandates that the CARB establish a quantified emissions cap, institute a schedule to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that reductions are achieved. California Senate Bill 97 California Senate Bill (SB) 97, passed in August 2007, is designed to work in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Assembly Bill 32. SB 97 requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects thereof, including but not limited to, effects associated with transportation and energy consumption. These guidelines were required to be transmitted to the Resources Agency by July 1, 2009, to be certified and adopted by January 1, 2010. The Office of Planning and Research submitted the Proposed Draft Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency conducted formal rulemaking in 2009 and adopted the Guideline Amendments on December 30, 2009. The Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency shall periodically update these guidelines to incorporate new information or criteria established by the CARB. EXISTING AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS As required by the CAA amendment of 1990, USEPA designated as "nonattainment" for areas that did not meet the NAAQS for ground-level ozone. These areas were classified as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme nonattainment areas based on air quality monitoring data. The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is designated as marginal nonattainment for the 8-hour NAAQS for O3. The SDAB was designated in attainment for all other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS with the exception of PM10, which was determined to be unclassifiable. The SDAB is currently designated nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.5, under the CAAQS. It is designated attainment for CO, NO2, SO2, lead, and sulfates. Table 1, SDAB Attainment Classification, summarizes San Diego County’s federal and state attainment designations for each of the criteria pollutants.

Page 7 of 18


Table 1

SDAB ATTAINMENT CLASSIFICATION

Pollutants Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (1 hour) Attainment* Nonattainment Ozone (8 hour) Nonattainment (marginal) Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment (Maintenance Area) Attainment PM10 Unclassifiable** Nonattainment PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (no federal standard) Unclassified

Source: USEPA 2012 and SDAPCD 2010 * The federal 1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans. ** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable. SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS/APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Criteria for determining the significance of air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants were developed based on the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may cause a significant effect on the environment if it would:

• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, including normal operational and accidental releases;

• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Result in substantial air emissions or deterioration of air quality; • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; or • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the

project region is a nonattainment area with regard to an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

This memorandum describes air quality analysis that was conducted to determine whether the project would result in significant air quality impacts based on these significance thresholds. Significance thresholds for air quality impacts related to criteria pollutants are based on the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) emissions thresholds. As part of its air

Page 8 of 18


quality permitting process, the SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 for the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments (AQIA). For the purpose of evaluating the significance of a project’s emissions, the SDAPCD’s Rule 20.2 was used as the screening thresholds for criteria pollutants. SDAPCD Rule 20.2 does not have AQIA thresholds for emissions of ROG and PM2.5. The use of the screening level for ROG specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which generally has stricter emissions thresholds than SDAPCD, is recommended for evaluating projects in San Diego County. For PM2.5, the USEPA Final Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which quantifies significant emissions as 10 tons per year, will be used as the screening-level criteria as shown in Table 2, Screening Level Criteria for Air Quality Impacts. This memorandum compares the project’s construction emissions to the SDAPCD/SCAQMD significance thresholds shown in Table 2.

Table 2 SCREENING-LEVEL CRITERIA FOR AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

Pollutant Total Emissions Pounds Per Hour Pounds per Day Tons per Year

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 25 250 40 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 25 250 40 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100 Lead and Lead Compounds --- 3.2 0.6 Reactive Organic Gases(ROG) --- 137 15 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) --- 100 15 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) - 55 10

Source: City of San Diego 2011 The State of California established two new guidance questions regarding GHG emissions in the Environmental Checklist set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G:

• Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

• Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emission threshold, and instead allow a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed

Page 9 of 18


by other agencies or experts.1 The Natural Resources Agency also acknowledges that a lead agency may consider compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 in determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.2 Based on guidance in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report CEQA & Climate Change, dated January 2008, an annual generation rate of 900 metric tons of GHG emissions has been used to determine when further GHG analysis is required. The CAPCOA report references the 900 metric ton guideline as a conservative threshold for requiring further GHG analysis and mitigation. This emission level is based on the amount of vehicle trips, the typical energy and water use, and other factors associated with projects. If a project would exceed the annual 900 metric ton screening threshold, then preparation of a detailed quantitative GHG analysis would be required. For the evaluation of construction emissions, the following approaches were used:

• For all criteria pollutants, construction emissions were estimated and compared to the thresholds listed in Table 2.

• The project’s increase in GHG emissions was estimated using the same methods used to estimate criteria pollutant emissions.

• Finally, the project was evaluated to determine if it meets regional conformity.

In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). In San Diego County, SDAPCD Regulation XII establishes acceptable risk levels and emission control requirements for new and modified facilities that may emit additional TACs. Under Rule 1210, emissions of TACs that result in a cancer risk of 10 in 1 million or less and a health hazard index of one or less are considered a less than significant impact. If a project has the potential to result in emissions of any TAC or HAP which result in a cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 million, the project would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact.

1 “The CEQA Guidelines do not establish thresholds of significance for other potential environmental impacts, and SB 97 did not authorize the development of a statement threshold as part of this CEQA Guidelines update. Rather, the proposed amendments recognize a lead agency’s existing authority to develop, adopt and apply their own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts” (California Natural Resources Agency 2009, p. 84). 2 “A project’s compliance with regulations or requirements implementing AB 32 or other laws and policies is not irrelevant. Section 15064.4(b)(3) would allow a lead agency to consider compliance with requirements and regulations in the determination of significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions” (California Natural Resources Agency 2009, p. 100).

Page 10 of 18


With regard to evaluating whether a project would have a significant impact on sensitive receptors, air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (Preschool-12th Grade), hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality. Any project which has the potential to directly impact a sensitive receptor located within 1 mile and results in a health risk greater than 10 in 1 million would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact. San Diego APCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) prohibits emission of any material which causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health or safety of any person. A project that proposes a use which would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off-site receptors.

The impacts associated with construction of the project were evaluated for significance based on these significance/screening criteria. IMPACT ANALYSIS Construction Emissions Construction emissions would be generated as exhaust from diesel combustion equipment and as fugitive dust from equipment operating over exposed earth. Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of the CARB’s OFFROAD2007 emission factors, using equipment horsepower and load factors from the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) for construction equipment. Based on information provided by SANDAG, construction of the five new transit stations along the SuperLoop route is anticipated to require approximately six months total. It was assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at each site for eight hours per day, five days per week during project construction. The project construction for each station would require the following equipment listed in Table 3, List of Construction Equipment, below.

Page 11 of 18


Table 3

LIST OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

Equipment Number Concrete Medians/Curbs Construction

Concrete Saw 1 Concrete Trucks/Mixers 2

Paving Machines 1 Pavement Construction

Concrete Saw 1 Concrete/Asphalt Trucks 2

Paving Machines 1 Shelter Construction

Crane 1 Miscellaneous Equipment 2

Landscaping Trucks 2 For conservative purposes, it was assumed that under the worst-case scenario all five stations would be constructed simultaneously. Table 4, Estimated Construction Emissions, provides a summary of the emission estimates for the construction phase of the proposed project. Refer to Attachment A for detailed emission calculations.

Table 4 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

lbs/day

Emission Source CO ROC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 Curbs Construction 12.58 1.46 27.53 2.98 1.73 1.58Pavement Construction 12.58 1.46 27.53 2.98 1.73 1.58Shelter Construction 7.07 1.43 4.66 0.04 0.17 0.15

TOTAL 32.23 4.35 59.72 6.00 3.63 3.31Significance Criteria 550 137 250 250 100 55 Significant? No No No No No No

Page 12 of 18


Emissions are below the SDAPCD/SCAQMD significance thresholds. Furthermore, due to the fact that the construction phase of the project is short-term in nature, project construction would not result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, nor result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 or exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors, NOX, and ROGs. Diesel exhaust particulate matter is known to the state of California as carcinogenic compounds. The risks associated with exposure to substances with carcinogenic effects are typically evaluated based on a lifetime of chronic exposure, which is defined in the CAPCOA Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (CAPCOA 1993) as 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year, for 70 years. Diesel exhaust particulate matter would be emitted during the six months of construction assumed for the project from heavy equipment used in the construction process. Because diesel exhaust particulate matter is considered to be carcinogenic, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust emissions have the potential to result in adverse health impacts. Because of the short-term nature of construction and the fact that heavy equipment exhaust emissions are not significant, exposure to diesel exhaust emissions during construction would not be significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions are anticipated to occur during construction of the proposed project largely from fuel combustion from construction equipment, worker commute travel, and hauling truck trips. Construction-related GHG emissions result from CO2, CH4, and N2O that is released during the combustion of gasoline or diesel fuel in on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. While the OFFROAD2007 emission factors does not provide estimates of CH4 and N2O, emissions of these CO2-equivalent (CO2e) compounds were calculated using a ratio of CO2 to CH4 and N2O as determined by the formula used by the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2010) for transportation fuels. These factors, along with the global warming potential factors for each GHG, were used to estimate the emissions in terms of CO2e. The CO2 emissions associated with construction worker trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95 percent of the CO2e emissions associated with passenger vehicles (USEPA 2005). The results were then converted from daily pounds per day to metric tons per year. Total GHG emissions associated with construction activities are estimated to generate approximately 104.17 metric tons of CO2e for the entire construction period. The construction GHG emissions are summarized in Table 5, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions, below. For the construction emissions, the interim CAPCOA guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized over 30 years to account for their contribution to project lifetime GHG emissions. Amortized over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 3.47 metric tons per year of CO2e emissions.

Page 13 of 18


Table 5 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS

Metric tons/year

Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Curbs Construction 29.17 0.03 0.15 29.35 Pavement Construction 29.17 0.03 0.15 29.35 Shelter Construction 45.23 0.04 0.20 45.47

TOTAL 104.17 Screening Threshold 900 Exceedance? No AMORTIZED EMISSIONS 3.47

Since this is well below the 900 metric ton screening threshold, no detailed quantitative GHG emissions analysis is required and construction of the five new SuperLoop stations would not result in significant GHG emissions impacts. Conformity – Regional A regional and project-specific conformity determination is required to ensure that the project meets federal requirements. Because the SDAB is nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, and a maintenance area for CO, a regional conformity analysis is needed to ensure that the project’s emissions meet the regional budget tests for these pollutants. The federal CAA requires that areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas demonstrate that federal actions conform to the SIP and similar approved plans. Transportation measures, such as the proposed project, are analyzed for conformity with the SIP as part of regional transportation plans (RTPs) and regional transportation improvement programs (RTIPs). The metropolitan planning organization responsible for the preparation of regional transportation plans and the associated air quality analyses is SANDAG. The applicable regional transportation plans are the 2050 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) and the 2010 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (2010 RTIP). A proposed project needs to be identified in both the RTP and the RTIP to conform to the SIP. Both plans, and an air quality analysis of the RTIP, were prepared by SANDAG. The proposed project is included in the 2050 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan (SANDAG 2011). The project’s design concept and scope are consistent with the project description in the 2050 RTP. The 2050 RTP was adopted by SANDAG on October 28, 2011.

Page 14 of 18


The proposed project is included in the Final 2010 RTIP under Transit Projects in Table 1-1 on Page 5, as SuperLoop MPO ID SAN123 (SANDAG 2010). The SuperLoop project is funded by the TransNet local sales tax measure extended by over 67 percent of the region’s voters in November 2004. The RTIP was approved by the federal agencies on February 19, 2008, and USDOT adopted a CAA conformity determination for the RTIP on that date (USDOT 2010). Conformity – Project Specific The project would not cause or contribute to violations of the CAAQS or NAAQS. The construction emission results found that the project would not result in violations of either federal or state air quality standards. Also, the project would not be considered a project of air quality concerns (POAC) and would not cause or contribute to violations of either the federal or state PM10/PM2.5 standards. Conclusion The emissions generated by the construction activities would not exceed the significance thresholds for the criteria air quality and GHG pollutants. Exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 70-year exposure period; thus construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed sensitive receptors due to the short-term nature of construction-related diesel exposure. Therefore, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an adverse air quality impact, and would be in conformance with the CAA requirements.

Page 15 of 18


REFERENCES California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA and Climate

Change, January 2008. Web page last accessed June 2011. http://www.capcoa.org. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 1993. Air Toxics Hot Spots

Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1. 2010. March. California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for

Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. Sacramento, CA. December.

City of San Diego, Development Services Department. 2011. Significance Determination

Thresholds, California Environmental Quality Act. Garza, V.J., P. Graney, and D. Sperling. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide

Protocol. Revised December. University of California, Davis. Prepared for Environmental Program California Department of Transportation. Available: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/coprot.htm>.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers (Working Group Fourth Assessment Report). February.

San Diego Association of Governments. 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Final.

October. San Diego Association of Governments. 2010. 2010 Regional Transportation Improvement

Program. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SCAPCD). 2010. Fact Sheet: Attainment

Status. http://www.sdapcd.org/info/facts/attain.pdf. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD). 2007. Eight-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan for San Diego County. May. Scientific Resources Associated (SRA). 2006. Air Quality Technical Report for the Super Loop

Transit Project. October 17.

Page 16 of 18

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/coprot.htm


South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2011. Air Quality Significance

Thresholds. Revised March 2011. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

April. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2009. Interim guidance update on air toxics

analysis in NEPA documents. Federal Highway Administration. Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/100109guidmem.cfm>.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2008. Conformity Determination for SANDAG’s

2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program and Conformity Redetermination for SANDAG’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Federal Highway Administration. Available: < http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_254_8966.pdf>. November 17.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2010. SANDAG 2008/09 RTIP Amendment No.

16 and Associated Air Quality Conformity Determination. Federal Highway Administration. Available: < http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_254_10994.pdf>. February 19.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006.

Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. March. (EPA420-B-06-902.) Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/pmhotspotguid.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Area Designation for Ground Level Ozone. April.

Available: <http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/designations/2008standards/final/region9f.htm>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors (AP-42).

Page 17 of 18

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/100109guidmem.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/air_toxics/policy_and_guidance/100109guidmem.cfm

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_254_8966.pdf

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_254_10994.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/pmhotspotguid.pdf

of 18


THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ATTACHMENT A EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Emission Factors2 (lb/hr or lb/mi)Maximum Emission Rates (lbs/day)

CO2 (lb/hr CH4 (lb/hr N2O (lb/hr 2

Emissions 2

Emissions 4

Emissions

Concrete/Asphalt Truck 489 41 2 8 16 N/A 272 0 784 32 07 018 11 8080 1 2464 27 3552 2 9520 1 7056 1 5692

CO2 Eq Emissions

(metric tons/yr)

CO2

Emissions (metric tons/yr)

CH4

Emissions (metric tons/yr)

N2O Emissions

(metric tons/yr)

TABLE A-1Heavy Construction Equipment Emissions

Equipment Fuel HP1FLoad actor

Max. Vehicle Hours

per Day

Max. Mper

Vehicper D

iles

le ay

MTo

VehM

per

GHG Emission Factorsax. tal icle

Max CO Max N O Max CHMax. NoEquipm

per D

. of ent

ay

HoVp

Max. urs per ehicle

er Day oriles Day

lb/mi) or lb/mi) or lb/mi) (lbs/day) (lbs/day (l) bs/day)CO VOC NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO ROG NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Curbs ConstructionPersonal Vehicle (Light Truck) Gasoline N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A 20 80 1.1005 0.000072 0.00003 88.04 0.01 0.004 0.007655 0.000796 0.000776 0.000011 0.000090 0.000058 0.6124 0.0637 0.0621 0.0009 0.0072 0.0046Concrete Saw Diesel 56 73 1 8 8 N/A N/A 30.2 0.0025 0.00112 176.37 0.01 0.004 0.020 0.024 0.002 0.003 0.0010 0.0009 0.1168 0.1402 0.0117 0.0175 0.0058 0.0054Concrete/Asphalt Truck Diesel 489 41 2 8 16 N/A N/A 272 0.0107 0.00480 1,784.32 0.07 0.018 1.80 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 0.24 11.8080 1.2464 27.3552 2.9520 1.7056 1.5692Paving Machine Diesel 91 53 1 8 8 N/A N/A 69.2 0.0060 0.00269 293.41 0.03 0.013 0.010 0.002 0.024 0.002 0.0010 0.0009 0.0424 0.0085 0.1018 0.0085 0.0042 0.0039

2,342.14 0.12 0.04 12.5796 1.4587 27.5307 2.9789 1.7229 1.5830Pavement Construction

Personal Vehicle (Light Truck) Gasoline N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A 20 80 1.1005 0.000072 0.00003 88.04 0.01 0.004 0.007655 0.000796 0.000776 0.000011 0.000090 0.000058 0.6124 0.0637 0.0621 0.0009 0.0072 0.0046Concrete Saw Diesel 56 73 1 8 8 N/A N/A 30.2 0.0025 0.00112 176.37 0.01 0.004 0.020 0.024 0.002 0.003 0.0010 0.0009 0.1168 0.1402 0.0117 0.0175 0.0058 0.0054Concrete/Asphalt Truck DieselDiesel 489 41 2 8 16 N/A N/AN/A 272 0.01070. 0.004800107 .00480 1,784.321, . 0.070. 0.0180. 1 80 0 19 4 17 0 45 0 26 0 24 11 8080 1 2464 27 3552 2 9520 1 7056 1 56921.80 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26 0.24 . . . . . .Paving Machine Diesel 91 53 1 8 8 N/A N/A 69.2 0.0060 0.00269 293.41 0.03 0.013 0.010 0.002 0.024 0.002 0.0010 0.0009 0.0424 0.0085 0.1018 0.0085 0.0042 0.0039

2,342.14 0.12 0.04 12.5796 1.4587 27.5307 2.9789 1.7229 1.5830Shelter Construction

Personal Vehicle (Light Truck) Gasoline N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A 20 80 1.1005 0.000072 0.00003 88.04 0.01 0.004 0.007655 0.000796 0.000776 0.000011 0.000090 0.000058 0.6124 0.0637 0.0621 0.0009 0.0072 0.0046Crane Diesel 194 43 1 8 8 N/A N/A 80.3 0.0042 0.00118 276.23 0.01 0.004 0.009 0.003 0.023 0.002 0.0015 0.0014 0.0310 0.0103 0.0791 0.0069 0.0052 0.0047Miscellaneous Equipment Diesel 345 58 2 8 16 N/A N/A 234 0.0085 0.00381 2,171.52 0.08 0.036 0.450 0.095 0.309 0.002 0.0107 0.0098 4.1714 0.8779 2.8684 0.0213 0.0993 0.0914Landscaping Truck Diesel 250 41 2 8 16 N/A N/A 167 0.0066 0.00296 1,095.52 0.04 0.009 0.344 0.073 0.252 0.002 0.0085 0.0078 2.2534 0.4789 1.6538 0.0125 0.0558 0.0513

3,631.31 0.14 0.05 7.0681 1.4308 4.6634 0.0415 0.1674 0.1520

Total4 8,315.59 0.37 0.13 32.24 4.36 59.72 6.00 3.61 3.330.062854 0.000059 0.062913

1CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Table A9-8-D2Emissions factors are conservatively assumed to be the 2011 scenario year presented in SCAQMD spreadsheets available at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html; PM2.5 data from http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/PM2_5/PM2_5.html3Data for "Other Construction Equipment" from the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Table A9-8-D used.4The total presented in boldface font is the sum of the unrounded data displayed in this table in its rounded form.

Curbs Construction 29.17 0.03 0.15 29.35Pavement Construction 29.17 0.03 0.15 29.35

Shelter Construction 45.23 0.04 0.20 45.47

Total Construction Emissions (metric tons per construction period) 104.18

Amortized Construction Emissions (metric tons per year) 3.47

APPENDIX B

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

MODIFIED ROUTE FOR SUPERLOOP TRANSIT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

REGENTS ROAD, ARRIBA STREET, PALMILLA DRIVE, LEBON DRIVE

November 2012

Prepared for: SANDAG

401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101

Prepared by: KOA Corporation

5095 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 330 San Diego, CA 92123

(619) 683-2933 Fax: (619) 683-7982

Job No.: JA92071

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit

KOA Corporation 2 November 2012

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 THE PROJECT.....................................................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................................4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................11 STUDY SCENARIOS............................................................................................................................................11 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES.............................................................................................................................11

Intersection Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................11 Signalized Intersections...........................................................................................................................11 Intersection Delay Analysis with Transit Signal Priority........................................................................12

Analysis of Significance...............................................................................................................................12 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK FOR MODIFIED ROUTE....................................................................................12 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR MODIFIED ROUTE........................................................................................12

CHAPTER 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT (NO-BUILD).................................................................18 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT .........................................................................................................18

CHAPTER 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT ............................................................................................24 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT................................................................................................................24

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................26 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ......................................................................................................................................26

Direct Impacts .............................................................................................................................................26 Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................................................................................26

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................26

List of Figures FIGURE 1-1 – SUPERLOOP ORIGINAL ROUTE AND STATION LOCATIONS .................................................................9 FIGURE 1-2 – SUPERLOOP MODIFIED ROUTE STUDY AREA...................................................................................10 FIGURE 2-1 – EXISTING ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS...........................................................................................14 FIGURE 2-2 – EXISTING GEOMETRIES WITH SUPERLOOP MODIFIED ROUTE ..........................................................15 FIGURE 2-3 – EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (NOVEMBER 2010) .......................................16 FIGURE 2-4 – EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (NOVEMBER 2010)........................................17 FIGURE 3-1 – YEAR 2014 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (NO BUILD AND WITH PROJECT) ...............20 FIGURE 3-2 – YEAR 2014 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (NO BUILD AND WITH PROJECT)................21 FIGURE 3-3 – YEAR 2030 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (NO BUILD AND WITH PROJECT) ...............22 FIGURE 3-4 – YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES (NO BUILD AND WITH PROJECT)................23 FIGURE 4-1 – INTERSECTION GEOMETRIES WITH SUPERLOOP MODIFIED ROUTE ..................................................25 List of Tables TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SUPERLOOP PRIORITY TREATMENTS.....................................................5 TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SUPERLOOP PRIORITY TREATMENTS – MODIFIED ROUTE .....................8 TABLE 2-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CONDITIONS.................................................................................................13 TABLE 3-1 YEAR 2014 INTERSECTION CONDITIONS – NO BUILD ..........................................................................18 TABLE 3-2 YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION CONDITIONS – NO BUILD ..........................................................................19 TABLE 4-1 YEAR 2014 INTERSECTION CONDITIONS – SUPERLOOP MODIFIED ROUTE..........................................24 TABLE 4-2 YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION CONDITIONS – SUPERLOOP MODIFIED ROUTE ..........................................25 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................26

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit


Appendices APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPTS, ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES, STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE APPENDIX B TRAFFIC COUNT DATA APPENDIX C GROWTH INFORMATION / CUMULATIVE PROJECTS APPENDIX D PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING CONDITIONS APPENDIX E PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – YEAR 2010 CONDITIONS APPENDIX F PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS

Modified Route for Super Loop Transit The Project


CHAPTER 1 THE PROJECT

This traffic impact analysis has been prepared for the proposed addition of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) to the existing route of the SuperLoop Transit project in the City of San Diego. This traffic impact study analyzes the vehicular conditions for the proposed addition of TSP to SuperLoop route segments along Regents Road, Arriba Street, Palmilla Drive and Lebon Drive. These route segments were added by SANDAG and MTS in September 2010 as part of a series of transit service route realignments in the project area. The first traffic impact study, “SuperLoop Transit Project Traffic Impact Study” conducted by Katz, Okitsu & Associates (now KOA Corporation) dated August 24, 2006 discusses the SuperLoop project in its entirety. In addition KOA prepared a report in June 2009 for the modified route along Genesee Avenue. Figure 1-1 shows the previous route as well as station locations for the SuperLoop Transit project.

BACKGROUND

The SuperLoop project is a circulatory transit route of approximately nine (9) miles that provides frequent transit connections in travel corridors between major activity centers in the University City community. The project included construction of transit stations, implementation of priority treatments, and restructuring of regional transit routes. The study area for the Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Traffic Impact Study (KOA Corporation, June, 2009) included the analysis of 40 intersections and roadway segments bounded by Gilman Drive to the west, Judicial Drive to the east, Voigt Drive to the north, and Nobel Drive to the south. The route was originally proposed to operate as follows:

• East/West along Nobel Drive • North/South along Judicial Drive • East/West along Executive Drive and Gilman Drive • North/South along Villa La Jolla and Gilman Drive

There are numerous treatments that speed transit vehicles to their destination and expedite loading and unloading. These treatments were previously discussed and analyzed in the 2009 SuperLoop traffic study. The treatments included signal priority, new turn lanes, intersection control treatments, and station treatments. The SuperLoop Transit Project Draft Priority Treatment Plan (STV Incorporated, June 2006) recommended signal priority treatments for all existing and planned signals along the SuperLoop route. Based on the qualitative analysis of that plan, the June 2009 traffic study recommended signal priority as the preferred treatment. The plan also made recommendations for changes to roadways and location of new stations. An interim change to the SuperLoop service was made in 2009, adding Genesee Avenue to the route. This modified route added operation north/south on Genesee Avenue between Executive Drive and Nobel Drive, in addition to north/south on Judicial Drive. The modified route was analyzed for two intersections that were included in the previously approved (2006) SuperLoop Transit study, and three additional intersections that were not included in the 2006 study. The modified route analysis performed in June 2009, Modified Route for Superloop Transit Traffic Impact Study included the following additional intersections: • Genesee Avenue / Executive Drive • Genesee Avenue / Executive Square • Genesee Avenue / La Jolla Village Drive



• Genesee Avenue / Esplanade Court • Genesee Avenue / Nobel Drive A summary of the recommended treatments for each study location is shown in Table 1-1 for the original route, modified to include the interim change to Genesee Avenue. Figure 1-2 shows the modified route south of Nobel Drive between Lebon Drive and Regents Road, and north of Nobel Drive between Towne Centre Drive and Shoreline Drive.

Table 1-1 Summary of Recommended SuperLoop Priority Treatment s

for Original Route Modified to Include Genesee

Major Street Cross-Street

Signal

Priority

New

Signal

New

Ped.

X-ing Signal

Rem

ove

Stop Sign

Station

Queue

Jumpers

New

Turn

Lanes

UTC Transit Center X

Nobel Drive Genesee Avenue X*

Nobel Drive Costa Verde Blvd. / Cargill Avenue X

Nobel Drive Regents Road X X

Nobel Drive Lebon Drive X X

Nobel Drive Caminito Plaza Centro X

Nobel Drive I-5 NB Off-Ramp / University Center Ln X*

Nobel Drive I-5 SB On-Ramp X*

Nobel Drive La Jolla Village Square Driveway X* X X

Nobel Drive Villa La Jolla Drive (south) X*

Villa La Jolla Drive La Jolla Village Square Center Driveway X

Villa La Jolla Drive Via Mallorca X

Gilman Drive Villa La Jolla Drive (south) X X

Gilman Drive La Jolla Village Drive WB Ramps X

Gilman Drive Scholars Drive / Osler Lane X X X

Gilman Drive Eucalyptus Grove Lane X

Gilman Drive Mandeville Lane X

Gilman Drive Library Walk X* X

Gilman Drive Myers Drive X* X X

Gilman Drive Russell Lane X* X X

Gilman Drive Villa La Jolla Dr (north) X*

Voigt Drive Scripps Hospital Bus Turnaround X X X

Voigt Drive Campus Point Drive X

Medical Center Drive Health Sciences Drive X

Health Sciences Drive Voigt Drive

Regents Road Health Sciences Drive X

Regents Road Eastgate Mall X

Executive Drive Regents Road X




Signal

Priority

New

Signal

New

Ped.

X-ing Signal

Rem

ove

Stop Sign

Station

Queue

Jumpers

New

Turn

Lanes

Executive Drive Regents Park Row X X X

Executive Drive Genesee Avenue X*

Executive Drive Executive Way X X

Executive Drive Towne Centre Drive X

Executive Drive Judicial Drive X+

Judicial Drive Golden Haven Drive / Brooke Lane X X

Judicial Drive Sydney Court X

Judicial Drive Research Place X X

Nobel Drive Judicial Drive X

Nobel Drive Shoreline Drive X

Nobel Drive Towne Centre Drive/ Avenida La Bahia X X

Genesee Avenue Esplanade Court

Notes: Signal Priority Treatments marked with an “X*” should be treated as System Signals, with a special need to coordinate with adjacent signals and

focus on an entire corridor instead of single intersections. Stations marked with an “X+” are potential stations currently, and may be moved or eliminated

in the future.

The original traffic impact study modified to include Genesee concluded the proposed SuperLoop project substantially meets the criteria for the City of San Diego and would significantly benefit the operating conditions of roadways and intersections within the study area.



PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A route for the SuperLoop project was implemented in September 2010 by SANDAG and MTS as part of a realignment of transit services in the University City area to enhance the efficiency of transit service. The MTS Route 30 bus route was relocated from the La Jolla Colony street segments to instead serve bus stops on La Jolla Village Drive. The SuperLoop route was modified to extend south from Nobel Drive to provide bus service in the La Jolla Colony area at two pairs of bus stops that had been previously served by Route 30. The modified SuperLoop route operates on the following new segments:

• Lebon Drive south of Nobel Drive • Palmilla Drive between Lebon Drive and Arriba Street • Arriba Street between Palmilla Drive and Regents Road • Regents Road between Nobel Drive and Arriba Street

To be conservative, this study assumes that the proposed project would add TSP to the existing traffic signals along the above new route segments where SuperLoop now operates. This study route would therefore require the re-analysis of two prior intersections from the previous traffic study and three additional intersections that were not included in the previously approved SuperLoop Transit study. This traffic impact study for the proposed addition of TSP therefore analyzes the following intersections:

• Nobel Drive and / Lebon Drive • Palmilla Drive / Lebon Drive • Arriba Street / Palmilla Drive • Regents Road / Arriba Street • Regents Road / Berino Court • Nobel Drive / Regents Road

TSP as implemented for the SuperLoop project modifies the normal signal operation process to improve transit schedule adherence. TSP improves the on-time performance of a transit system by assisting a transit vehicle that may fall behind schedule to recover from a delay through the use of modified traffic signal cycles that can extend the green light signal length. This provides a significant customer benefit because reliability is improved and waiting times are reduced.. In order to be conservative, this study assumes that the TSP equipment at the intersections of Lebon Drive and Regents Road along Nobel Drive would be altered with the new modified route and TSP equipment would be added to the existing traffic signals at Regents Road and Palmilla Drive along Arriba Street, and at Berino Court on Regents Road. Table 1-2 shows the assumed priority treatments for the proposed modified route of the SuperLoop.



Table 1-2 Summary of SuperLoop Priority Treatments – Modified Route


Signal

Priority

New

Signal

New

Ped.

X-ing Signal

Rem

ove

Stop Sign

Station

Queue

Jumpers

New

Turn

Lanes

Nobel Dr Lebon Dr X

Lebon Dr Palmilla Dr X X

Palmilla Dr Arriba St X

Regents Rd Arriba St X X

Regents Rd Berino Ct X

Nobel Dr Regents Rd X

November 2012KOA Corporation

Not To ScaleN

Modified Route for Super Loop Transit

Eastgate Mall

Genesee Ave.

Regents

Rd.

Nobe

l Dr.

Executive Dr.

Executive Sq.

Judicial Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Gilm

an D

r

Holiday Ct.Lebon D

r.Ca

mpu

s Po

int Dr.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Voigt Dr.

Health Sciences Dr.

Via

Mallo

rca

Tow

ne C

ente

r Dr.

Golden

Hav

en D

r.

Shoreline Dr.

Univ Center Ln

Mye

rs Dr.

Russe

ll Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Regents

Rd.

Genese

e A

ve.

Executive Dr.

Voigt Dr.

Judicia

l Dr.

Tow

ne C

ente

r Dr.

Nobel Dr.

Genesee Ave.

ampus Point D

r.

Res

earc

h Pl

.

NB R

am

p

La Jolla Village Dr.

Berino Ct.

Sydn

ey C

t.


Nobel Dr.

Arriba St.

Executive Wy.

Regents Park Row

Broo

ke L

n.

SB R

am

p

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Eastgate Mall

INTERSTATE

805

INTERSTATE

5

Palm

illa D

r.

Renaissance Ave.

LEGEND

Station

Station Option

SuperLoop Route

Gilman / Villa La Jolla

UCSD / VA Medical CenterExecutive Drive

La Jolla Village Square

Nobel / Towne Centre

Executive / Genesee

University Towne Centre

Judicial / Golden Haven

La Jolla Commons

Scripps Hospital

UCSD East Campus

Nobel / LebonNobel Park

Nobel / Regents

Figure 1-1

SuperLoop Original Route and Station Locations

The Project


Not To ScaleN


Eastgate Mall

Genesee Ave.

Regents

Rd.

Nobe

l Dr.

Executive Dr.

Executive Sq.

Judicial Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Gilm

an D

r

Holiday Ct.Lebon D

r.Ca

mpu

s Po

int Dr.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Voigt Dr.

Health Sciences Dr.

Via

Mallo

rca

Tow

ne C

ente

r Dr.

Golden

Hav

en D

r.

Shoreline Dr.

Univ Center Ln

Mye

rs Dr.

Russe

ll Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Regents

Rd.

Genese

e A

ve.

Executive Dr.

Voigt Dr.

Judicia

l Dr.

Tow

ne C

ente

r Dr.

Nobel Dr.

Genesee Ave.

ampus Point D

r.

Res

earc

h Pl

.

NB R

am

p


Berino Ct.

Sydn

ey C

t.


Nobel Dr.

Arriba St.

Executive Wy.

Regents Park Row

Broo

ke L

n.

SB R

am

p

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Eastgate Mall

INTERSTATE

805

INTERSTATE

5

Palm

illa D

r.

Renaissance Ave.

13

LEGEND

SuperLoop Modified Route

Modified Route Study Intersection

SuperLoop Study Intersection

SuperLoop Original Route

4Figure 1-2

SuperLoop Modified Route Study Area

The Project

46

4544

43

4

5

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Existing Conditions


CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter documents the existing conditions in the study area and discusses the methodologies and assumptions used to conduct the traffic impact analysis for the project. The study methodology and analysis is conducted in accordance with the City of San Diego Traffic Impact Study Manual (1998) and the City of San Diego Significance Determination Thresholds Development Services Department (2011). These guidelines are used to determine the project’s potential significant impacts. This section contains the following background information:

• Study scenarios • Study time periods • Capacity analysis methodologies

STUDY SCENARIOS

This report presents an analysis of the following analysis scenarios:

• Existing Conditions • Near-Term Conditions (Year 2014 Conditions with Approved Projects) • Near-Term Conditions With Project (Year 2014 Conditions with Approved Projects and

Project Implementation) • Horizon Year Conditions (Year 2030) • Horizon Conditions with Project (Year 2030 and Project Implementation)

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

Street system operating conditions are typically described in terms of “level of service.” Level of service is a report-card scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at intersections. Level of service (LOS) ranges from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme congestion). A more detailed description of the concepts described in this section is provided in Appendix A of this document. The following methods are outlined in this publication and used in this study.

Intersection Capacity Analysis The analysis of peak hour intersection performance was conducted using the Traffix analysis software program, which uses methodologies defined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to calculate results. Level of service (LOS) for intersections is determined by control delay. Control delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from free-flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. Appendix A lists the HCM delay/LOS criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized Intersections The HCM analysis methodology for evaluating signalized intersections is based on the “operational analysis” procedure. This technique uses 1,900 passenger cars per hour of green per lane (pcphgpl) as the maximum saturation flow of a single lane at an intersection. This saturation flow rate is adjusted



to account for lane width, on-street parking, conflicting pedestrian flow, traffic composition, (e.g., the percentage of vehicles that are trucks) and shared lane movements (e.g., through and right-turn movements from the same lane). Average control delay is calculated by taking a volume-weighted average of all the delays for all vehicles entering the intersection. Intersection Delay Analysis with Transit Signal Priority The proposed transit signal priority (TSP) event results in the same signal timing assuming that the total signal cycle length remains constant between a TSP event and a non-TSP event. The side street’s green time is reduced by the same amount as the main street’s green time is increased (green extension) in order to maintain the same cycle length for the intersection.

Analysis of Significance To determine direct project impacts, the City of San Diego has developed a series of thresholds based on allowable increases in volume-to-capacity ratios that become more stringent as level of service worsens. As discussed previously, the City of San Diego significance determination thresholds are used. Appendix A summarizes these thresholds. Where roadway intersections operate at LOS D or better, impacts are not considered significant.

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK FOR MODIFIED ROUTE

The principal roadways of the modified route are described briefly below. The descriptions include the physical characteristics, adjacent land uses, and traffic control devices along these roadways. Figure 2-1 shows the existing roadway classifications for the roadways of the proposed modified route. Lebon Drive south of Nobel Drive runs north/south and functions as a 4-lane major street with 2 lanes in each direction. The roadway has a paved width of 83 feet with a raised median and parking allowed on both sides of the street. The land use is mainly residential and the roadway provides driveway access to the adjacent land uses. Palmilla Drive runs primarily north/south and functions as a 4-lane collector. The roadway has a paved width up to 64 feet with two lanes in each direction. The street has a bike lane on each side of the street and a painted median. The roadway provides driveway access to adjacent land uses which are mainly residential dwellings. Arriba Street runs east/west and functions as a 4-lane collector with 2 lanes in each direction and a raised median. The street has a bike lane in each direction. The roadway has a paved width up to 78 feet. The street has commercial development on its northern side and residential on its southern side. The street provides driveway access to the commercial developments on its north side. Regents Road is a north/south street functioning as a 4-lane major with two lanes in each direction. The street has a raised median with no median breaks. The roadway has a paved width up to 92 feet with parking allowed on both sides. The land use is mainly residential development, with a recreation center north of Berino Court. The street provides driveway access to the adjacent developments.

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FOR MODIFIED ROUTE

Intersection turning movement counts were conducted during the weekday morning peak period from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and during the weekday evening peak period from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM in November 2010. The traffic counts include SuperLoop vehicles that currently operate on these streets



since September 2010. The count sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 2-1 summarizes the existing intersection conditions for AM and PM peak periods. Figure 2-2 shows intersection geometries with the proposed modified SuperLoop route. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show existing weekday morning and evening peak hour intersection volumes.

Table 2-1 Existing Intersection Conditions

Existing Intersection

Delay LOS AM Peak Hour

4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 34.0 C

43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 15.0 B

44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 23.2 C

45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 7.0 A

46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 4.4 A

5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 24.9 C

PM Peak Hour 4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 59.3 E

43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 8.8 A

44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 17.9 B





Not To ScaleN


Eastgate Mall

Genesee Ave.

Regents

Rd.

Nobe

l Dr.

Executive Dr.

Executive Sq.

Judicial Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Gilm

an D

r

Holiday Ct.Lebon D

r.Ca

mpu

s Po

int Dr.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Voigt Dr.

Health Sciences Dr.

Via

Mallo

rca

Tow

ne C

ente

r Dr.

Golden

Hav

en D

r.

Shoreline Dr.

Univ Center Ln

Mye

rs Dr.

Russe

ll Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Regents

Rd.

Genese

e A

ve.

Executive Dr.

Voigt Dr.

Judicia

l Dr.

Tow

ne C

ente

r Dr.

Nobel Dr.

Genesee Ave.

ampus Point D

r.

Res

earc

h Pl

.

NB R

am

p


Berino Ct.

Sydn

ey C

t.


Nobel Dr.

Arriba St.

Executive Wy.

Regents Park Row

Broo

ke L

n.

SB R

am

p

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Eastgate Mall

INTERSTATE

805

INTERSTATE

5

Palm

illa D

r.

Renaissance Ave.

LEGEND

6 Lane Prime6 Lane Major4 Lane Major4 Lane Collector4 Lane Local2 Lane Major2 Lane Collector2 Lane Local2 Lane ResidentialNon-Study Segment

City of San Diego Roadway Classifications

Figure 2-1

Existing Roadway Classification

Existing Conditions

4

5

46

4544

43


Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

Figure 2-2

Intersection Geometries with Super Loop Modified Route

LEGENDGeometric Configuration

Traffic Signal

Stop Control


Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

66

141

127

93

5447

14

21

11

117

73

8

15

114

118

162

17

82

231

106

250

28

70

122

6158

260

172

40

225

133

354

118

27

444

46

56

450

91

42

57

36

5

46

43

45

44

4

61

284

194

17641957

163

353

93

51172

40

LEGEND

PM Peak Hour Traffic10

*Volumes could be off due to rounding

Figure 2-3

Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Nov 2010)


Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

109

145

325

127

5679

12 8 8

81

152

14

13

128

65

186

31

244

224

19

19660

34

28

225

248

163

510

40

158

125

151

110

73

793

134

165

977

65

102

275

65

5

46

43

45

44

4

83

127

124

118631100

201

829

89

248

468

278

LEGEND



Figure 2-4

Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Nov 2010)

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Future Conditions Without Project (No-Build)


CHAPTER 3 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT (NO-BUILD)

This section discusses the future base conditions of the study area for the SuperLoop Modified Route without the introduction of TSP in Year 2014 and Year 2030, known as the “No-Build” scenario. Traffic volume is forecast for the study area without TSP to provide an analytical basis for comparison to the proposed project.

FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT

Traffic growth on area roadways is a function of the expected land development, economic activity, and changes in demographics in the study area. Several methods can be used to estimate this growth. For this analysis a growth consistent with the growth used in the original SuperLoop project was maintained at the two intersections which were included in the previous study: Nobel Dr./ Lebon Dr., Nobel Dr./ Regents Rd. Traffic volumes at the three new internal intersections were then grown in a fashion to show balanced growth along the corridor. The growth along each corridor inherently assumes the same cumulative projects as did the original SuperLoop project. The project’s major effect will be based on the implementation of TSP. Traffic volumes for the “With Project” scenarios in Year 2014 and Year 2030 are therefore the same as for the No-Build scenario and are shown in Figures 3-1 through 3-4. Information about the growth and cumulative projects can be seen in Appendix C. No circulation network changes are assumed for the proposed roadways in the study area. The following tables summarize the results of this analysis. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize intersection conditions for the No Build scenario in Year 2014 and Year 2030, respectively.

Table 3-1 Year 2014 Intersection Conditions – No Build

2014 Without Project Intersection

Delay LOS

AM Peak Hour

4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 35.0 C






PM Peak Hour

4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 85.3 F


44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 19.0 B




Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Future Conditions Without Project (No-Build)


Table 3-2

Year 2030 Intersection Conditions – No Build

2030 Without Project Intersection

Delay LOS

AM Peak Hour

4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 36.0 D






PM Peak Hour

4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 104.9 F







Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

71

156

132

98

5952

19

26

11

142

73

8

15

114

143

172

17

87

301

106

255

28

70

152

6663

280

187

40

230

133

354

138

27

517

46

74

544

93

45

57

36

5

46

43

45

44

4

61

376

230

19849357

190

426

122

77192

84

LEGEND



Figure 3-1

Year 2014 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (No-Build and With Project)


Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

114

165

360

132

6184

12

13 8

121

152

14

13

128

90

211

41

294

304

19

216

60

34

38

245

268

198

610

40

178

125

151

165

73

973

134

216

1137

71

108

275

65

5

46

43

45

44

4

83

160

202

163824100

269

1017

134

303

557

307

LEGEND



Figure 3-2

Year 2014 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (No-Build and With Project)


Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

75

164

139

197

119

55

126

344

12

149

77

53

16

120

150

181

225

91

566

111

383

29

74

160

9966

294

400

42

242

160

460

159

35

650

60

96

626

121

52

74

43

5

46

43

45

44

4

100

650

253

228567125

209

500

134

85325

97

LEGEND



Figure 3-3

Year 2030 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (No-Build and With Project)


Not To ScaleN


Lebon D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Shoreline Dr.

Verd

e Blv

d.

Cos

ta

Genese

e A

ve.

Nobel Dr.Re

gent

s Rd

.

Tow

n C

ente

r D

r.

Renaissance Ave

Arriba St

Palm

ila D

r

Charmant Dr

Nobel Dr.

Berino Ct

120

173

378

265

200

88

150

250 8

127

160

93

14

134

95

222

542

309

572

20

324

63

36

40

400

281

208

1147

42

187

150

196

190

951168

174

281

1308

92

124

358

78

5

46

43

45

44

4

95

277

222

187948173

296

1200

147

333

836

353

LEGEND



Figure 3-4

Year 2030 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (No-Build and With Project)

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Future Conditions With Project


CHAPTER 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT

This section discusses the future conditions of the study area for the SuperLoop project and proposed operation of the TSP modified route in Year 2014 and Year 2030. TSP equipment would not be installed at these locations until at the earliest 2013, so there would be no effects before Year 2014. Traffic volumes are forecast for the study area with the SuperLoop TSP proposed project and compared to the No-Build scenarios.

FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT

Chapter 3 discussed the derivation of volumes for this traffic study. Traffic volumes for the “With Project” scenarios in Year 2014 and Year 2030 are the same as the No-Build scenario and were shown previously in Figures 3-1 through 3-4. Table 4-1 summarizes the results of the intersection analysis for Year 2014. Table 4-2 summarizes the results of the intersection analysis for Year 2030.

Table 4-1 Year 2014 Intersection Conditions – SuperLoop TSP at Modified Route

2014 Without Project

2014 With Project Intersection

Delay LOS Project Modification

Delay LOS

∆ Delay

Sig?

AM Peak Hour 4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 35.0 C WBL and NB Thru 38.7 D 3.7 No 43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 16.0 B NB and SB Thru 20.3 C 4.3 No 44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 22.9 C EBL and SB Thru 25.4 C 2.5 No 45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 6.8 A SBL and WB 9.2 A 2.4 No 46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 4.5 A WB Thru and SB 5.7 A 1.2 No 5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 24.8 C EB Thru and NBL 24.9 C 0.1 No

PM Peak Hour 4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 85.3 F WBL and NB Thru 86.1 F 0.8 No 43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 8.7 A NB and SB Thru 9.9 A 1.2 No 44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 19.0 B EBL and SB Thru 20.8 C 1.8 No 45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 7.1 A SBL and WB 10.2 B 3.1 No 46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 5.2 A WB Thru and SB 6.7 A 1.5 No 5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 28.0 C EB Thru and NBL 28.0 C 0.0 No

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Future Conditions With Project


Table 4-2 Year 2030 Intersection Conditions – SuperLoop TSP at Modified Route



Delay LOS Project Modification

Delay LOS

∆ Delay

Sig?

AM Peak Hour 4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 36.0 D WBL and NB Thru 40.6 D 4.6 No 43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 18.0 B NB and SB Thru 20.4 C 2.4 No 44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 24.3 C EBL and SB Thru 28.3 C 4.0 No 45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 7.5 A SBL and WB 9.9 A 2.4 No 46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 4.8 A WB Thru and SB 5.8 A 1.0 No 5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 25.9 C EB Thru and NBL 26.1 C 0.2 No

PM Peak Hour 4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 104.9 F WBL and NB Thru 105.6 F 0.7 No 43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 9.5 A NB and SB Thru 10.5 B 1.0 No 44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 24.9 C EBL and SB Thru 28.0 C 3.1 No 45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 8.2 A SBL and WB 11.5 B 3.3 No 46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 5.7 A WB Thru and SB 7.0 A 1.3 No 5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 31.7 C EB Thru and NBL 32.0 C 0.3 No

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Summary


CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY

This chapter summarizes the impacts of the proposed project of adding TSP to the modified route for the SuperLoop project. This chapter also presents recommendations based on the preceding analysis.

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

No intersections would be impacted significantly with the introduction of the TSP for the bus.

Direct Impacts

• None

Cumulative Impacts

• None

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS

Table 5-1 summarizes the intersection conditions for the proposed modified route of the SuperLoop project.

Table 5-1 Summary of Intersection Conditions

Existing 2014 Without Project

2014 With Project



Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM Peak Hour

4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 34.0 C 35.0 C 38.7 D 36.0 D 40.6 D 43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 15.0 B 16.0 B 20.3 C 18.0 B 20.4 C 44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 23.2 C 22.9 C 25.4 C 24.3 C 28.3 C 45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 7.0 A 6.8 A 9.2 A 7.5 A 9.9 A 46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 4.4 A 4.5 A 5.7 A 4.8 A 5.8 A 5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 24.9 C 24.8 C 24.9 C 25.9 C 26.1 C

PM Peak Hour 4. Regents Rd @ Nobel Dr 59.3 E 85.3 F 86.1 F 104.9 F 105.6 F 43. Regents Rd @ Berino Ct 8.8 A 8.7 A 9.9 A 9.5 A 10.5 B 44. Regents Rd @ Arriba St 17.9 B 19.0 B 20.8 C 24.9 C 28.0 C 45. Palmila Dr @ Arriba St 6.9 A 7.1 A 10.2 B 8.2 A 11.5 B 46. Palmila Dr/Charmant Dr @ Lebon Dr 5.1 A 5.2 A 6.7 A 5.7 A 7.0 A 5. Nobel Dr @ Lebon Dr 25.9 C 28.0 C 28.0 C 31.7 C 32.0 C

Modified Route for SuperLoop Transit Summary


Sincerely, KOA Corporation J. Arnold Torma, P.E. Principal Engineer Prepared By: Seth Torma, AICP, PTP, Senior Planner Balaji Shivaji, Associate Engineer

APPENDIX A

LEVEL OF SERVICE CONCEPTS, ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES, STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Roadway Segment Level of Service Definitions

LOS V/C Congestion/Delay Traffic Description

(Used for surface streets, freeways, expressways and conventional highways) "A" <0.41 None Free flow. "B" >0.41-0.62 None Free to stable flow, light to moderate volumes.

"C" >0.62-0.80 None to minimal Stable flow, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted.

"D" >0.80-0.92 Minimal to substantial Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited freedom to maneuver.

"E" >0.92-1.00 Significant Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological comfort extremely poor.

(Used for surface streets and conventional highways)

"F" >1.00 Considerable

Forced or breakdown flow. Delay measured in average travel speed (MPH). Signalized segments experience delays >60.0 seconds/vehicle.

(Used for freeways and expressways)

"F(0)" >1.00-1.25 Considerable 0-1 hour delay

Forced flow, heavy congestion, long queues form behind breakdown points, stop and go.

"F(1)" >1.25-1.35 Severe 1-2 hour delay Very heavy congestion, very long queues.

"F(2)" >1.35-1.45 Very Severe 2-3 hour delay

Extremely heavy congestion, longer queues, more numerous breakdown points, longer stop periods.

"F(3)" >1.45 Extremely Severe 3+ hours of delay Gridlock

Source: Caltrans, 1992. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS The concept of LOS is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and the motorist's and/or passengers' perception of operations. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service for freeway segments can generally be categorized as shown in the table above.

City of San Diego Roadway Capacity Standards

Cross Sections1 Level of Service ADT2 Street Classification Lanes

A B C D E Freeway 8 lanes 60,000 84,000 120,000 140,000 150,000 Freeway 6 lanes 45,000 63,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Freeway 4 lanes 30,000 42,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Expressway 6 lanes 102/122 30,000 42,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Prime Arterial 6 lanes 102/122 25,000 35,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 Major Arterial 6 lanes 102/122 20,000 28,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Major Arterial 4 lanes 78/98 15,000 21,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 Collector 4 lanes 72/92 10,000 14,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Collector (no center lane) 4 lanes 64/84 5,000 7,000 13,000 15,000 (continuous left-turn lane) 2 lanes 50/70 10,000 Collector (no fronting property) 2 lanes 40/60 4,000 5,500 7,500 9,000 10,000 Collector (commercial- 2 lanes 50/70 2,500 3,500 5,000 6,500 8,000 industrial fronting) Collector (multi-family) 2 lanes 40/60 2,500 3,500 5,000 6,500 8,000 Sub-Collector (single-family) 2 lanes 36/56 --- --- 2,200 --- --- Legend: 1XXX/XXX = Curb to curb width (feet)/right of way width (feet): based upon the City of San Diego Street Design Manual. 2Approximate recommended ADT based upon the City of San Diego Street Design Manual. Notes: The volumes and the average daily level of service listed above are only intended as a general planning guideline. Levels of service are not applied to residential streets since their primary purpose is to serve abutting lots, not carry through traffic. Levels of service normally apply to roads carrying through traffic between major trip generators and attractors.

Arterial Level of Service Definitions LOS Class I

(45 to 35 mph) Class II

(35-30 mph) Class III

(35 to 25) LOS Characteristic

"A" ≥35 ≥30 ≥25 Speeds 90% of free-flow speed. minimal stopped delay

"B" ≥28 ≥24 ≥19 Speeds 70% of free-flow speed, delay not bothersome

"C" ≥22 ≥18 ≥13 Speeds 50% of free-flow speed, longer queues,

noticeable delay "D" ≥17 ≥14 ≥9 Speeds 40% of free-flow,

substantial delay. "E" ≥13 ≥10 ≥7 Speeds 30% of free-flow, high

delay. "F" <13 <10 <7 Speeds 25% of free-flow, high

delay, extensive queuing LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DEFINITIONS The concept of LOS is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and the motorist's and/or passengers' perception of operations. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service for arterial segments with a range of free-flow speeds can generally be categorized as shown in the table above.

Signalized Intersection Level of Service

Highway Capacity Manual Operational Analysis Method The operational analysis method for evaluation of signalized intersections presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209) defines level of service in terms of delay, or more specifically, control stopped delay per vehicle. Delay is a measure of driver and/or passenger discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time.

Control Stopped Delay Per Vehicle

(seconds)

Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics

<10 LOS A describes operations with very low delay. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

>10 – 20 LOS B describes operations with generally good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

>20 – 35 LOS C describes operations with higher delays, which may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

>35 – 55 LOS D describes operations with high delay, resulting from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volumes. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

>55 – 80 LOS E is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. >80 LOS F describes a condition of excessively high delay, considered unacceptable to most drivers. This

condition often occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Exhibit 16-2

MINOR STREET STOP AND ALL-WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS METHOD The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis method for evaluating minor street stop intersections is based on the average total delay for each impeded movement. For all-way stop controlled intersections it is based on the average total delay for the entire intersection. As used here, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue to the first-in-queue position. The average total delay for any particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The resulting delay is used to determine the level of service as shown in the following table.

Average Total Delay Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics 0-10 LOS A – Little or no delay

>10 – 15 LOS B – Short traffic delay >15 – 25 LOS C – Average traffic delay >25 – 35 LOS D – Long traffic delays >35 – 50 LOS E – Very long traffic delays

>50 LOS F – When the demand exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered and queuing may cause severe congestion to the intersection.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Exhibit 17-22

City of San Diego

Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts Allowable Change due to Project Impact**

Freeways Roadway Sections Intersections Ramps*** Level of Service

with Project* V/C Speed (mph) V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec.) Delay (min.)

E 0.01 1 0.02 1 2 2 F 0.005 0.5 0.01 0.5 1 1

Notes: * All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for Roadway

Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24-hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or an equivalent LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally “D” (“C” for undeveloped locations). For metered freeway ramps, project traffic impacts are generally acceptable if they do not cause any traffic queues to exceed ramp storage capacities.

** If a proposed project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are determined to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from acceptable computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant shall then identify feasible mitigation within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project is “E” or “F,” the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes.

***See Attachment B for ramp metering analysis. Key: V/C = Volume to Capacity ratio Speed = Speed measured in miles per hour Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds, or minutes LOS = Level of Service

APPENDIX B

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

File Name : 1086.01.REGENTS RD.BERINO CTSite Code : 00000000Start Date : 11/9/2010Page No : 1

Groups Printed- VehiclesREGENTS RDSouthbound

BERINO CTWestbound

REGENTS RDNorthbound Eastbound

Start Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total

07:00 38 32 0 2 5 0 9 1 0 22 15 3 0 0 0 2 12907:15 117 49 0 15 11 0 37 5 0 51 38 17 0 0 0 7 34707:30 82 59 0 88 25 0 42 8 0 94 50 114 0 0 0 6 56807:45 28 29 0 23 28 0 41 9 0 49 13 18 0 0 0 3 241Total 265 169 0 128 69 0 129 23 0 216 116 152 0 0 0 18 1285

08:00 33 35 0 3 6 0 2 4 0 37 5 8 0 0 0 4 13708:15 27 32 0 4 1 0 4 2 0 34 1 2 0 0 0 9 11608:30 38 39 0 2 2 0 4 5 0 46 3 1 0 0 0 2 14208:45 42 43 0 6 1 0 1 8 0 40 4 4 0 0 0 7 156Total 140 149 0 15 10 0 11 19 0 157 13 15 0 0 0 22 551

*** BREAK ***

16:00 17 60 0 10 11 0 4 0 0 38 5 5 0 0 0 3 15316:15 26 64 0 4 4 0 3 5 0 35 4 4 0 0 0 6 15516:30 33 76 0 6 9 0 6 3 0 47 3 6 0 0 0 24 21316:45 35 94 0 10 6 0 6 5 0 39 3 7 0 0 0 32 237Total 111 294 0 30 30 0 19 13 0 159 15 22 0 0 0 65 758

17:00 38 116 0 8 9 0 2 2 0 44 3 10 0 0 0 4 23617:15 26 119 0 7 9 0 8 4 0 56 7 1 0 0 0 14 25117:30 41 169 0 3 9 0 7 2 0 66 3 5 0 0 0 18 32317:45 58 106 0 0 7 0 11 2 0 58 6 2 0 0 0 4 254Total 163 510 0 18 34 0 28 10 0 224 19 18 0 0 0 40 1064

Grand Total 679 1122 0 191 143 0 187 65 0 756 163 207 0 0 0 145 3658Apprch % 34.1 56.3 0 9.6 36.2 0 47.3 16.5 0 67.1 14.5 18.4 0 0 0 100

Total % 18.6 30.7 0 5.2 3.9 0 5.1 1.8 0 20.7 4.5 5.7 0 0 0 4

True Count4401 Twain Ave. #27San Diego, CA, 92120


REGENTS RDSouthbound

BERINO CTWestbound


Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total

Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 11:45 - Peak 1 of 1

Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:1507:15 117 49 0 15 181 11 0 37 5 53 0 51 38 17 106 0 0 0 7 7 34707:30 82 59 0 88 229 25 0 42 8 75 0 94 50 114 258 0 0 0 6 6 56807:45 28 29 0 23 80 28 0 41 9 78 0 49 13 18 80 0 0 0 3 3 24108:00 33 35 0 3 71 6 0 2 4 12 0 37 5 8 50 0 0 0 4 4 137

Total Volume 260 172 0 129 561 70 0 122 26 218 0 231 106 157 494 0 0 0 20 20 1293% App. Total 46.3 30.7 0 23 32.1 0 56 11.9 0 46.8 21.5 31.8 0 0 0 100

PHF .556 .729 .000 .366 .612 .625 .000 .726 .722 .699 .000 .614 .530 .344 .479 .000 .000 .000 .714 .714 .569

REGENTS RD

B

ER

INO

CT

REGENTS RD

Right0

Thru172

Left260

Peds129

InOut Total353 561 914

Right122

Thru0 Left70

Peds26

Out

TotalIn

366 218

584

Left0

Thru231

Right106

Peds157

Out TotalIn242 494 736

Left0

Thru

0 R

ight0

Ped

s20

Tota

lO

utIn

0 20

20

Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 Vehicles

Peak Hour Data

North




BERINO CTWestbound





Total Volume 163 510 0 18 691 34 0 28 10 72 0 224 19 18 261 0 0 0 40 40 1064% App. Total 23.6 73.8 0 2.6 47.2 0 38.9 13.9 0 85.8 7.3 6.9 0 0 0 100

PHF .703 .754 .000 .563 .811 .944 .000 .636 .625 .857 .000 .848 .679 .450 .882 .000 .000 .000 .556 .556 .824

REGENTS RD

B

ER

INO

CT

REGENTS RD

Right0

Thru510

Left163

Peds18


Right28

Thru0 Left34

Peds10

Out

TotalIn

182 72

254

Left0

Thru224

Right19

Peds18


Left0

Thru

0 R

ight0

Ped

s40

Tota

lO

utIn

0 40

40


Peak Hour Data

North


File Name : 1086.02.REGENTS RD.ARRIBA STSite Code : 00000000Start Date : 11/9/2010Page No : 1


ARRIBA STWestbound

REGENTS RDNorthbound

ARRIBA STEastbound


07:00 18 4 11 7 2 20 7 5 4 5 4 2 22 21 0 3 13507:15 39 2 14 14 5 27 52 5 5 4 2 13 45 15 2 1 24507:30 69 6 31 37 7 37 36 5 3 9 2 2 32 21 4 13 31407:45 36 5 26 14 1 30 23 1 2 3 3 4 18 16 2 3 187Total 162 17 82 72 15 114 118 16 14 21 11 21 117 73 8 20 881

08:00 23 3 16 14 0 19 16 1 2 2 4 0 9 19 3 4 13508:15 25 0 17 17 3 28 10 0 2 4 0 1 11 15 2 5 14008:30 23 2 13 27 2 20 20 2 4 4 5 4 20 24 0 6 17608:45 28 4 18 32 5 34 21 1 4 1 1 2 13 15 5 10 194Total 99 9 64 90 10 101 67 4 12 11 10 7 53 73 10 25 645

*** BREAK ***

16:00 39 2 31 10 0 24 15 0 1 3 1 0 14 23 3 4 17016:15 45 2 25 10 1 25 13 1 2 2 1 5 12 27 2 6 17916:30 38 2 38 29 2 28 14 0 0 0 1 1 12 21 3 4 19316:45 41 3 48 23 2 38 12 3 2 2 2 8 21 19 3 2 229Total 163 9 142 72 5 115 54 4 5 7 5 14 59 90 11 16 771

17:00 44 5 55 7 1 33 16 3 0 2 1 5 17 38 7 10 24417:15 43 5 69 27 5 27 15 3 3 2 6 5 13 39 2 6 27017:30 57 16 74 16 4 32 18 4 6 2 1 4 21 47 4 11 31717:45 42 5 46 12 3 36 16 6 3 2 0 8 30 28 1 7 245Total 186 31 244 62 13 128 65 16 12 8 8 22 81 152 14 34 1076

Grand Total 610 66 532 296 43 458 304 40 43 47 34 64 310 388 43 95 3373Apprch % 40.6 4.4 35.4 19.7 5.1 54.2 36 4.7 22.9 25 18.1 34 37.1 46.4 5.1 11.4

Total % 18.1 2 15.8 8.8 1.3 13.6 9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1 1.9 9.2 11.5 1.3 2.8




ARRIBA STWestbound


ARRIBA STEastbound




Total Volume 162 17 82 72 333 15 114 118 16 263 14 21 11 21 67 117 73 8 20 218 881% App. Total 48.6 5.1 24.6 21.6 5.7 43.3 44.9 6.1 20.9 31.3 16.4 31.3 53.7 33.5 3.7 9.2

PHF .587 .708 .661 .486 .582 .536 .770 .567 .800 .739 .700 .583 .688 .404 .698 .650 .869 .500 .385 .779 .701

REGENTS RD

AR

RIB

A S

T A

RR

IBA

ST

REGENTS RD

Right82

Thru17

Left162

Peds72


Right118

Thru114

Left15 P

eds16

Out

TotalIn

246 263

509

Left14

Thru21

Right11

Peds21


Left117

Thru73

R

ight8

Ped

s20

Tota

lO

utIn

210

218

428


Peak Hour Data

North




ARRIBA STWestbound


ARRIBA STEastbound




Total Volume 186 31 244 62 523 13 128 65 16 222 12 8 8 22 50 81 152 14 34 281 1076% App. Total 35.6 5.9 46.7 11.9 5.9 57.7 29.3 7.2 24 16 16 44 28.8 54.1 5 12.1

PHF .816 .484 .824 .574 .802 .650 .889 .903 .667 .910 .500 1.00 .333 .688 .781 .675 .809 .500 .773 .846 .849

REGENTS RD

AR

RIB

A S

T A

RR

IBA

ST

REGENTS RD

Right244

Thru31

Left186

Peds62


Right65

Thru128

Left13 P

eds16

Out

TotalIn

346 222

568

Left12

Thru8

Right8

Peds22


Left81

Th

ru152

Rig

ht14

Ped

s34

Tota

lO

utIn

384

281

665


Peak Hour Data

North


File Name : 1086.03.PALMILLA DR.ARRIBA STSite Code : 00000000Start Date : 11/9/2010Page No : 1

Groups Printed- VehiclesPALMILLA DRSouthbound

ARRIBA STWestbound

PALMILLA DRNorthbound Eastbound


07:00 6 13 0 7 24 0 15 2 0 14 40 1 0 0 0 1 12307:15 15 12 0 19 25 0 16 3 0 9 42 0 0 0 0 0 14107:30 22 16 0 12 37 0 42 3 0 19 38 1 0 0 0 0 19007:45 11 6 0 4 41 0 20 2 0 24 21 0 0 0 0 0 129Total 54 47 0 42 127 0 93 10 0 66 141 2 0 0 0 1 583

08:00 9 10 0 5 14 0 27 2 0 18 22 0 0 0 0 0 10708:15 4 17 0 8 29 0 11 5 0 19 27 0 0 0 0 0 12008:30 11 16 0 10 22 0 17 2 0 12 31 0 0 0 0 0 12108:45 10 10 0 14 27 0 25 4 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 142Total 34 53 0 37 92 0 80 13 0 75 106 0 0 0 0 0 490

*** BREAK ***

16:00 11 10 0 10 43 0 26 1 0 19 35 0 0 0 0 0 15516:15 12 9 0 11 32 0 17 0 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 0 11616:30 7 15 0 45 61 0 21 0 0 23 36 0 0 0 0 0 20816:45 10 25 0 23 75 0 34 1 0 38 30 0 0 0 0 0 236Total 40 59 0 89 211 0 98 2 0 99 117 0 0 0 0 0 715

17:00 11 28 0 12 70 0 31 3 0 25 43 0 0 0 0 0 22317:15 15 9 0 20 72 0 29 1 0 23 35 0 0 0 0 0 20417:30 20 17 0 22 108 0 33 3 0 23 37 0 0 0 0 0 26317:45 20 26 0 20 62 0 38 7 0 25 30 0 0 0 0 0 228Total 66 80 0 74 312 0 131 14 0 96 145 0 0 0 0 0 918

Grand Total 194 239 0 242 742 0 402 39 0 336 509 2 0 0 0 1 2706Apprch % 28.7 35.4 0 35.9 62.7 0 34 3.3 0 39.7 60.1 0.2 0 0 0 100

Total % 7.2 8.8 0 8.9 27.4 0 14.9 1.4 0 12.4 18.8 0.1 0 0 0 0



PALMILLA DRSouthbound

ARRIBA STWestbound





Total Volume 54 47 0 42 143 127 0 93 10 230 0 66 141 2 209 0 0 0 1 1 583% App. Total 37.8 32.9 0 29.4 55.2 0 40.4 4.3 0 31.6 67.5 1 0 0 0 100

PHF .614 .734 .000 .553 .715 .774 .000 .554 .833 .701 .000 .688 .839 .500 .901 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .767

PALMILLA DR

A

RR

IBA

ST

PALMILLA DR

Right0

Thru47

Left54

Peds42


Right93

Thru0 Left

127 P

eds10

Out

TotalIn

195 230

425

Left0

Thru66

Right141

Peds2


Left0

Thru

0 R

ight0

Ped

s1

Tota

lO

utIn

0 1

1


Peak Hour Data

North



PALMILLA DRSouthbound

ARRIBA STWestbound





Total Volume 56 79 0 77 212 325 0 127 8 460 0 109 145 0 254 0 0 0 0 0 926% App. Total 26.4 37.3 0 36.3 70.7 0 27.6 1.7 0 42.9 57.1 0 0 0 0 0

PHF .700 .705 .000 .837 .898 .752 .000 .934 .667 .799 .000 .717 .843 .000 .934 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .880

PALMILLA DR

A

RR

IBA

ST

PALMILLA DR

Right0

Thru79

Left56

Peds77


Right127

Thru0 Left

325 P

eds8

Out

TotalIn

201 460

661

Left0

Thru109

Right145

Peds0


Left0

Thru

0 R

ight0

Ped

s0

Tota

lO

utIn

0 0

0


Peak Hour Data

North


File Name : 1086.04.LEBON DR.PALMILLA DRSite Code : 00000000Start Date : 11/9/2010Page No : 1

Groups Printed- VehiclesLEBON DR

SouthboundPALMILLA DR

Westbound NorthboundCHARMANT DR

EastboundStart Time Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Int. Total

07:00 14 0 8 6 0 1 40 1 0 0 0 0 31 4 0 0 10507:15 17 0 9 11 0 4 39 0 0 0 0 0 46 16 0 3 14507:30 11 0 16 27 0 7 87 1 0 0 0 0 71 15 0 1 23607:45 13 0 19 22 0 7 57 5 0 0 0 0 56 7 0 4 190Total 55 0 52 66 0 19 223 7 0 0 0 0 204 42 0 8 676

08:00 20 0 14 18 0 10 67 2 0 0 0 0 52 2 0 4 18908:15 15 0 8 9 0 2 52 2 0 0 0 0 43 1 0 2 13408:30 16 0 8 20 0 2 58 0 0 0 0 0 57 9 0 4 17408:45 23 0 15 31 0 1 55 5 0 0 0 0 59 5 0 2 196Total 74 0 45 78 0 15 232 9 0 0 0 0 211 17 0 12 693

*** BREAK ***

16:00 25 0 41 10 0 8 52 4 0 0 0 0 17 9 0 2 16816:15 24 0 44 10 0 9 42 3 0 0 0 0 24 6 0 3 16516:30 43 0 44 20 0 6 47 0 0 0 0 0 31 4 0 6 20116:45 51 0 48 13 0 21 53 1 0 0 0 1 33 10 0 3 234Total 143 0 177 53 0 44 194 8 0 0 0 1 105 29 0 14 768

17:00 53 0 50 13 0 18 38 2 0 0 0 1 51 9 0 9 24417:15 71 0 58 22 0 11 52 10 0 0 0 1 31 13 0 10 27917:30 56 0 75 12 0 12 57 3 0 0 0 0 46 6 0 9 27617:45 45 0 65 24 0 19 49 1 0 0 0 0 30 12 0 7 252Total 225 0 248 71 0 60 196 16 0 0 0 2 158 40 0 35 1051

Grand Total 497 0 522 268 0 138 845 40 0 0 0 3 678 128 0 69 3188Apprch % 38.6 0 40.6 20.8 0 13.5 82.6 3.9 0 0 0 100 77.5 14.6 0 7.9

Total % 15.6 0 16.4 8.4 0 4.3 26.5 1.3 0 0 0 0.1 21.3 4 0 2.2



LEBON DRSouthbound

PALMILLA DRWestbound Northbound

CHARMANT DREastbound




Total Volume 61 0 58 78 197 0 28 250 8 286 0 0 0 0 0 225 40 0 12 277 760% App. Total 31 0 29.4 39.6 0 9.8 87.4 2.8 0 0 0 0 81.2 14.4 0 4.3

PHF .763 .000 .763 .722 .912 .000 .700 .718 .400 .753 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .792 .625 .000 .750 .796 .805

LEBON DR

CH

AR

MA

NT

DR

PA

LMILLA

DR

Right58

Thru0

Left61

Peds78


Right250

Thru28 Left0

Peds8

Out

TotalIn

101 286

387

Left0

Thru0

Right0

Peds0

Out TotalIn0 0 0

Left225

Thru40

R

ight0

Ped

s12

Tota

lO

utIn

86

277

363


Peak Hour Data

North



LEBON DRSouthbound

PALMILLA DRWestbound Northbound

CHARMANT DREastbound




Total Volume 225 0 248 71 544 0 60 196 16 272 0 0 0 2 2 158 40 0 35 233 1051% App. Total 41.4 0 45.6 13.1 0 22.1 72.1 5.9 0 0 0 100 67.8 17.2 0 15

PHF .792 .000 .827 .740 .901 .000 .789 .860 .400 .932 .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .775 .769 .000 .875 .844 .942

LEBON DR

CH

AR

MA

NT

DR

PA

LMILLA

DR

Right248

Thru0

Left225

Peds71


Right196

Thru60 Left0

Peds16

Out

TotalIn

265 272

537

Left0

Thru0

Right0

Peds2

Out TotalIn0 2 2

Left158

Thru40

R

ight0

Ped

s35

Tota

lO

utIn

308

233

541


Peak Hour Data

North


File Name : 1086.05.LEBON DR.NOBEL DRSite Code : 00000000Start Date : 11/9/2010Page No : 1

Groups Printed- VehiclesLEBON DR

SouthboundNOBEL DRWestbound

LEBON DRNorthbound

NOBEL DREastbound


07:00 6 7 2 0 13 74 21 7 20 41 29 0 6 69 14 6 31507:15 4 11 10 8 10 97 13 11 31 60 18 12 13 100 14 30 44207:30 8 12 11 26 18 101 25 41 36 98 30 9 9 119 8 34 58507:45 11 13 7 14 15 133 19 13 40 90 34 7 6 95 15 21 533Total 29 43 30 48 56 405 78 72 127 289 111 28 34 383 51 91 1875

08:00 16 21 7 13 10 106 26 8 35 77 26 3 7 129 14 20 51808:15 7 11 11 8 13 110 21 7 22 89 28 1 5 101 9 14 45708:30 8 13 8 8 7 95 30 18 27 84 24 9 7 93 9 17 45708:45 4 13 11 12 12 125 22 26 35 89 21 13 8 112 12 27 542Total 35 58 37 41 42 436 99 59 119 339 99 26 27 435 44 78 1974

*** BREAK ***

16:00 20 51 15 3 26 164 16 9 34 33 19 14 5 178 19 9 61516:15 20 44 22 5 16 184 29 6 30 35 19 2 14 164 25 12 62716:30 18 49 16 7 16 161 49 11 35 37 17 9 22 147 41 20 65516:45 24 62 17 15 38 212 20 14 27 38 30 11 20 172 21 23 744Total 82 206 70 30 96 721 114 40 126 143 85 36 61 661 106 64 2641

17:00 24 59 12 0 29 268 13 9 31 46 21 23 21 205 40 48 84917:15 32 77 14 7 48 264 16 18 29 35 26 29 17 217 38 17 88417:30 22 77 22 2 50 233 16 10 38 32 33 3 15 199 35 19 80617:45 27 70 15 0 37 217 13 4 33 42 25 7 22 165 38 21 736Total 105 283 63 9 164 982 58 41 131 155 105 62 75 786 151 105 3275

Grand Total 251 590 200 128 358 2544 349 212 503 926 400 152 197 2265 352 338 9765Apprch % 21.5 50.5 17.1 10.9 10.3 73.5 10.1 6.1 25.4 46.7 20.2 7.7 6.2 71.9 11.2 10.7

Total % 2.6 6 2 1.3 3.7 26.1 3.6 2.2 5.2 9.5 4.1 1.6 2 23.2 3.6 3.5



LEBON DRSouthbound

NOBEL DRWestbound

LEBON DRNorthbound

NOBEL DREastbound




Total Volume 42 57 36 61 196 56 450 91 69 666 133 354 118 20 625 27 444 46 89 606 2093% App. Total 21.4 29.1 18.4 31.1 8.4 67.6 13.7 10.4 21.3 56.6 18.9 3.2 4.5 73.3 7.6 14.7

PHF .656 .679 .818 .587 .860 .778 .846 .875 .421 .900 .831 .903 .868 .556 .903 .750 .860 .767 .654 .891 .894

LEBON DR

NO

BE

L D

R N

OB

EL D

R

LEBON DR

Right36

Thru57

Left42

Peds61


Right91

Thru450

Left56 P

eds69

Out

TotalIn

604 666

1270

Left133

Thru354

Right118

Peds20


Left27

Th

ru444

Rig

ht46

Ped

s89

Tota

lO

utIn

619

606

1225


Peak Hour Data

North



LEBON DRSouthbound

NOBEL DRWestbound

LEBON DRNorthbound

NOBEL DREastbound




Total Volume 102 275 65 24 466 165 977 65 51 1258 125 151 110 66 452 73 793 134 107 1107 3283% App. Total 21.9 59 13.9 5.2 13.1 77.7 5.2 4.1 27.7 33.4 24.3 14.6 6.6 71.6 12.1 9.7

PHF .797 .893 .739 .400 .896 .825 .911 .813 .708 .909 .822 .821 .833 .569 .934 .869 .914 .838 .557 .881 .928

LEBON DR

NO

BE

L D

R N

OB

EL D

R

LEBON DR

Right65

Thru275

Left102

Peds24


Right65

Thru977

Left165

Peds51

Out

TotalIn

1005 1258

2263

Left125

Thru151

Right110

Peds66


Left73

Th

ru793

Rig

ht134

Ped

s10

7

Tota

lO

utIn

1167

11

07

2274


Peak Hour Data

North


File Name : 1086.06.REGENTS RD.NOBEL DRSite Code : 00000000Start Date : 11/9/2010Page No : 1


NOBEL DRWestbound


NOBEL DREastbound


07:00 12 22 8 8 21 72 11 14 8 24 16 12 19 90 8 10 35507:15 10 89 5 9 83 69 27 31 10 53 37 19 39 81 26 24 61207:30 9 30 4 12 47 92 20 44 19 96 60 39 46 106 14 35 67307:45 17 35 21 13 20 94 19 22 23 76 73 14 41 107 13 25 613Total 48 176 38 42 171 327 77 111 60 249 186 84 145 384 61 94 2253

08:00 15 18 10 3 13 98 27 19 9 59 24 19 50 125 4 8 50108:15 12 22 12 9 15 93 21 6 15 49 18 17 50 91 8 17 45508:30 8 19 13 17 25 87 24 13 10 52 29 23 33 102 7 23 48508:45 27 33 13 21 30 114 20 17 12 54 18 24 42 103 9 34 571Total 62 92 48 50 83 392 92 55 46 214 89 83 175 421 28 82 2012

*** BREAK ***

16:00 26 41 58 3 29 137 15 17 17 24 26 38 21 158 25 5 64016:15 54 53 43 3 51 162 38 13 7 21 23 44 25 143 18 17 71516:30 39 73 36 6 34 168 26 28 15 43 34 35 28 132 11 24 73216:45 63 87 64 6 37 186 34 31 16 29 29 70 28 139 16 55 890Total 182 254 201 18 151 653 113 89 55 117 112 187 102 572 70 101 2977

17:00 59 122 66 7 49 211 17 41 11 34 23 80 28 163 23 14 94817:15 74 117 91 3 48 232 16 44 27 30 43 52 29 161 34 31 103217:30 52 142 57 10 67 200 22 36 29 34 29 27 33 168 27 21 95417:45 51 101 63 11 60 194 19 15 20 36 39 36 28 153 16 16 858Total 236 482 277 31 224 837 74 136 87 134 134 195 118 645 100 82 3792

Grand Total 528 1004 564 141 629 2209 356 391 248 714 521 549 540 2022 259 359 11034Apprch % 23.6 44.9 25.2 6.3 17.5 61.6 9.9 10.9 12.2 35.1 25.6 27 17 63.6 8.1 11.3

Total % 4.8 9.1 5.1 1.3 5.7 20 3.2 3.5 2.2 6.5 4.7 5 4.9 18.3 2.3 3.3




NOBEL DRWestbound


NOBEL DREastbound




Total Volume 51 172 40 37 300 163 353 93 116 725 61 284 194 91 630 176 419 57 92 744 2399% App. Total 17 57.3 13.3 12.3 22.5 48.7 12.8 16 9.7 45.1 30.8 14.4 23.7 56.3 7.7 12.4

PHF .750 .483 .476 .712 .664 .491 .901 .861 .659 .863 .663 .740 .664 .583 .736 .880 .838 .548 .657 .925 .891

REGENTS RD

NO

BE

L D

R N

OB

EL D

R

REGENTS RD

Right40

Thru172

Left51

Peds37


Right93

Thru353

Left163

Peds116

Out

TotalIn

664 725

1389

Left61

Thru284

Right194

Peds91


Left176

Thru41

9 R

ight57

P

eds92

Tota

lO

utIn

454

744

1198


Peak Hour Data

North




NOBEL DRWestbound


NOBEL DREastbound




Total Volume 248 468 278 26 1020 201 829 89 152 1271 83 127 124 229 563 118 631 100 121 970 3824% App. Total 24.3 45.9 27.3 2.5 15.8 65.2 7 12 14.7 22.6 22 40.7 12.2 65.1 10.3 12.5

PHF .838 .824 .764 .650 .895 .750 .893 .654 .864 .935 .716 .934 .721 .716 .926 .894 .939 .735 .550 .951 .926

REGENTS RD

NO

BE

L D

R N

OB

EL D

R

REGENTS RD

Right278

Thru468

Left248

Peds26


Right89

Thru829

Left201

Peds152

Out

TotalIn

1003 1271

2274

Left83

Thru127

Right124

Peds229


Left118

Thru63

1 R

ight100

Ped

s12

1

Tota

lO

utIn

1190

97

0 21

60


Peak Hour Data

North


APPENDIX C

GROWTH INFORMATION / CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

Super Loop Transit Project Draft Traffic Impact Study

August 24, 2006 Page 35

3. FUTURE WITHOUT CONDITIONS

This section presents the future study area roadway operations without the Super Loop project. The future without project conditions provide an analytical base for comparison with the Super Loop project conditions.

To determine future roadway operations, traffic volumes and roadway conditions in the study area were forecast to the years 2010 and 2030. The 2010 forecast reflects a four-year planning horizon within which the Super Loop Project would be completed and operational. The 2030 forecast reflects Community Plan “build-out” operations for the study area. This section presents the methodology for developing the forecast year(s) operating conditions, including traffic volumes and construction, and the results of the future year(s) without project level-of service analysis.

3.1. 2010 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS

The 2010 without project conditions reflect the “near term” forecast of operating conditions in the study area without the Super Loop project. The procedure used to develop the 2010 roadway operating conditions included identifying planned and new development projects and roadway construction projects that are expected to be open by 2010. Subsection 3.1.3 includes the planned and ongoing roadway construction projects that are expected to be open by 2010. The planned and new development projects, also known as “cumulative projects”, are included as defined below in Section 3.1.1.

3.1.1. Cumulative Projects

Cumulative projects consist of specific developments that are either planned or ongoing in the study area that will affect traffic growth on the study area roadways.

A comprehensive list of cumulative projects for the University City area was compiled based on research of City, UCSD and private development records (References 1 through 11), and through inquiries to the respective agency planning staffs. The type, size, and current status of each cumulative project are shown on Table 3.1. The location of each project is shown on Figure 3.1.

The project reference number on Column 1 of Table 3.1 corresponds to the project reference number on Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1. Cumulative Projects List

Ref # Project Name Type Size Daily Trips Status Residential 120 du 960 Hotel 325 rooms 3250 Office 450 ksf 5264

1. La Jolla Commons

R&D/Office 845 ksf 845

Construction

Residential 1500 du 2. La Jolla Crossroads

R&D/Office 162 ksf 10,296

Construction/ Partial Occupancy

Super Loop Transit Project Draft Traffic Impact Study

August 24, 2006 Page 36

Ref # Project Name Type Size Daily Trips Status Institutional 8373 persons1 11,493

3. UCSD LRDP R&D/Office 260 ksf 2080

Construction

4. Qualcomm Office 330 ksf 3,300 Community Plan Amendment

5. Towne Centre Corporate Plaza

R&D/Office 190 ksf 1,900 Review

6. Nexus Center R&D/Office 191 ksf 1,915 Construction

7. Equity Office/La Jolla Centre III and IV

Office 547 ksf 7,170 Review

Commercial 750 ksf 20,655 8. University Towne Centre

Residential 250 du 1,275 Review

Commercial 6 ksf 256 9. Holiday Court

Residential 107 du 642 Review

10. Costa Verde Commercial Commercial 75 ksf 5,400 Community Plan Amendment

11. Monte Verde Residential 1,084 du 6,504 Review 1 Trip generation rates vary among resident students, non-resident students, faculty, staff and researchers

For this analysis it is assumed that all of the listed developments will be built and occupied by the year 2010. The traffic for all of these developments, except Costa Verde, was assigned to the study area roadways based on information contained in the traffic studies for each project. A traffic study was not available for Costa Verde, therefore trip generation estimates were calculated based on ITE trip generation guidelines and distributed through the study area based on local travel patterns.

In regards to the UCSD Long Range Development Plan (LRDP), trip distribution for this project was obtained from the UCSD LRDP Traffic Impact Analysis, 2004. The LRDP analysis assumed the construction of a new east-west bridge on the UCSD campus connecting Eastgate Mall with Gilman Drive over I-5. The LRDP assumed the bridge to be open by year 2010. More recent information indicates that bridge construction will be delayed for at least five years beyond 2010. As such, LRDP trip assignments at intersections effected by this network change were modified in order to compensate for the removal of this link.

Each specific cumulative project is described in detail below. The Cumulative Projects Description list numbering corresponds to the reference numbers on Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.

Cumulative Projects Description 1. La Jolla Commons: This project is located east of the current terminus of Executive Drive

and is bounded by I-805, La Jolla Village Drive, and the planned completion of Judicial Drive. This is a mixed-use development currently under construction and includes a 450,000 square foot mid-rise office building, a 25-story residential tower, a 325 room hotel, other general office development (mainly for scientific research), and open space. La Jolla Commons is expected to be completed by 2007.

Not To Scale

N

Not To Scale

N

SANDAG Super LoopTraffic Study

August 24, 2006

JA5399

Katz, Okitsu & AssociatesTraffic Engineers and Transportation Planners

Eastgate Mall

Genesee Ave.

Reg

ents

Rd

.

Nob

el D

r.

Executive Dr.

Esplanade Ct.

Executive Sq.

Judicial Dr.

Gilm

an D

r.

Gil

man

Dr

Vil

la L

a J

oll

a D

r.

Holiday Ct.L

ebo

n D

r.C

ampu

s Poi

nt D

r.

Car

gill

Ave

.

Voigt Dr.

Health Sciences Dr.

Via M

allorca

Osler Ln.

Eucalyptus Grove Ln.

Scholars Dr.

Town

e Cen

ter Dr.

Golden H

aven D

r.

Shoreline Dr.

Univ Center Ln

Cm

nto.

My

ers Dr.

Ru

ssell Dr.

Mandeville R

d.

La Jolla Village

Sq. Drwy.

Gilm

an D

r.

Reg

ents

Rd

.

Gen

esee Av

e.

Executive Dr.

Voigt Dr.

Jud

icial Dr.

To

wn

e Cen

ter Dr.

Nobel Dr.

Lombard

Pl.

Genesee Ave.

Cam

pus Point Dr.

Res

earc

h Pl

.

NB

Ram

p


Sydn

ey C

t.


Nobel Dr.

Executive Wy.

Broo

ke L

n.

SB

Ram

p

Verd

e Bl

vd.

Cos

ta

Not To Scale

N

Eastgate Mall

INTERSTATE

5INTERSTATE

805

Regents ParkR

ow

Med

ical

Cen

ter

Dr.

Nexus Center

La Jolla Centre III & IV

Qualcomm

Figure 3.1

Cumulative Projects Map

LEGEND

Single Family Residential

Multi Family Residential

Group Quarters

Commercial

Industrial; Wearhouse/Storage

Communication Utilities; Transportation Related

Institutional

Schools

Park; Open Space

Private Recreation

Undeveloped

Table 2.1 Reference

SFR CU

PR

U

P

SMFR

GQ

C

Ins

I

Towne Center Science Park

La Jolla Commons

La Jolla Crossroads

UCSD LRDP

UTC Expansion

Costa Verde Commercial

Monte Verde

Holiday Court

3

9

10

#

8

7

2

1

6

54

11

2010 Model

8684

238

30

9947

8822

0

12879

6491

3077

4741

9642

5143

98789

13172

95726

3424

2045

53172

6601

5851

20627

36148

2125

8236

9

53548

56105

7278

28496

1025

1

9426

2756

4526643

16

5708 6637

7920

7659

218

219

1571

6844

831672

335

7744

7810

20007

1118

5

708

36010

5594

20059

1904

22458

3621

8113

2991

8

9185

42081

7528

2258

7

13615

268474372

25455

11371

6017

318416

294

1201

7

2660

5670

8825

1213

7

4353

1182

5

3552

34843

35653

25379

1444

8

20831

38352

1217

6

51871

11229

1134

0

2547

4826

1179

3

4220

443

1737

5

7138

15204 6096

2390

6

1481

8

2 297

2

3301

18852

1785

719

413

2161

3

42933

1146413

489

4544

8508

9211

16017

10660

10266

1901

7

1429

8

4669

12961

2218

14168

1362

8

15397

1207

5

1904

APPENDIX D

PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – EXISTING CONDITIONS

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing

4: Nobel Dr. & Regents Rd. AM Peak Period

KOA Corporation. Formerly

Katz, Okitsu & Associates

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR

Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5493 3204 3421 1742 1829 4617 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5493 3204 3421 1742 1829 4617 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 176 419 57 163 353 93 61 284 194 51 172 40

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) 191 455 62 177 384 101 66 309 211 55 187 43

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 18 0 0 0 80 0 88 0 0 0 22

Lane Group Flow (vph) 191 499 0 177 384 21 66 432 0 55 187 21

Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Prot Perm

Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6

Permitted Phases 8 6

Actuated Green, G (s) 10.1 22.7 9.0 22.0 22.0 7.4 53.9 6.7 52.9 52.9

Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 24.4 9.4 23.3 23.3 7.8 55.1 7.1 54.4 54.4

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.22 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.49 0.06 0.49 0.49

Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5

Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.4 2.0 6.1 6.1 2.0 5.7 2.0 6.2 6.2

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 311 1197 269 712 362 127 2271 112 1719 820

v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.09 0.06 c0.11 c0.04 c0.09 0.03 0.05

v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.61 0.42 0.66 0.54 0.06 0.52 0.19 0.49 0.11 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 37.7 49.7 39.6 35.6 50.3 15.9 50.7 15.6 15.0

Progression Factor 0.79 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 2.5 1.1 4.4 2.9 0.3 1.5 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1

Delay (s) 41.1 39.6 54.1 42.5 35.9 51.8 16.1 51.9 15.8 15.1

Level of Service D D D D D D B D B B

Approach Delay (s) 40.0 44.6 20.1 22.6

Approach LOS D D C C

Intersection Summary

HCM Average Control Delay 34.0 HCM Level of Service C

HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 112.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0

Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A

Analysis Period (min) 15

c Critical Lane Group


5: Nobel Dr. & Lebon Dr. AM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4847 1711 4957 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4847 1711 4957 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 27 444 46 56 450 91 133 354 118 42 57 36


Adj. Flow (vph) 29 483 50 61 489 99 145 385 128 46 62 39



Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot pm+ov

Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4 5





Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 2350 112 2505 323 849 380 249 681 484

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.11 c0.04 c0.11 c0.05 c0.11 0.01 0.02 0.00


v/c Ratio 0.20 0.22 0.54 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.08 0.18 0.09 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 16.7 50.7 15.5 47.4 36.9 33.6 48.6 36.0 31.6



Delay (s) 51.8 16.9 52.6 8.2 47.8 38.1 33.9 48.7 36.1 31.6

Level of Service D B D A D D C D D C

Approach Delay (s) 18.7 12.3 39.4 38.9

Approach LOS B B D D









43: Berino Ct & Regents Rd. AM Peak Period



Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT

Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.95 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1672 3372 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1672 3372 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 70 122 231 106 260 172

Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

Adj. Flow (vph) 76 133 251 115 283 187

RTOR Reduction (vph) 65 0 41 0 0 0

Lane Group Flow (vph) 144 0 325 0 283 187

Turn Type Prot

Protected Phases 8 2 1 6

Permitted Phases

Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 16.2 11.0 31.5

Effective Green, g (s) 9.6 17.4 11.4 32.8

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.35 0.23 0.65

Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.3

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 318 1164 400 2303

v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 c0.10 c0.16 0.05

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.45 0.28 0.71 0.08

Uniform Delay, d1 18.1 12.0 18.0 3.2

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 5.6 0.0

Delay (s) 19.1 12.1 23.6 3.3

Level of Service B B C A

Approach Delay (s) 19.1 12.1 15.5

Approach LOS B B B


HCM Average Control Delay 15.0 HCM Level of Service B







44: Arriba St & Regents Rd. AM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3485 1770 3270 1770 3357 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3485 1770 3270 1770 3357 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 117 73 8 15 114 118 14 21 11 162 17 82


Adj. Flow (vph) 127 79 9 16 124 128 15 23 12 176 18 89



Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot pm+ov


Permitted Phases 4

Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 40.3 1.1 30.4 1.0 5.2 12.6 16.8 27.8

Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 41.3 1.5 31.4 1.4 6.2 13.0 17.8 29.2

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.53 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.08 0.17 0.23 0.37

Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4

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) 259 1845 34 1316 32 267 295 808 674

v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.02 0.01 c0.05 0.01 c0.01 c0.10 0.01 0.01

v/s Ratio Perm 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.49 0.05 0.47 0.13 0.47 0.09 0.60 0.02 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 30.6 8.8 37.9 14.7 37.9 33.3 30.1 23.3 15.6

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.0 9.9 0.0 10.5 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.0

Delay (s) 32.1 8.9 47.8 14.8 48.4 33.4 33.3 23.4 15.6

Level of Service C A D B D C C C B

Approach Delay (s) 22.6 16.7 37.9 27.1

Approach LOS C B D C









45: Arriba St & Palmila Dr AM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3290 3178 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.61 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3290 3178 1139 3539

Volume (vph) 127 93 66 141 54 47


Adj. Flow (vph) 138 101 72 153 59 51



Turn Type Perm

Protected Phases 3 2 6

Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 872 1633 585 1818

v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 0.01

v/s Ratio Perm c0.05

v/c Ratio 0.19 0.09 0.10 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 10.3 4.5 4.5 4.3



Delay (s) 10.4 4.5 4.6 4.3

Level of Service B A A A


Approach LOS B A A


HCM Average Control Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A







46: Charmant Dr & Lebon Dr. AM Peak Period



Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR

Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3346 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1372 3539 3539 1583 3346 1441

Volume (vph) 225 40 28 250 61 58


Adj. Flow (vph) 245 43 30 272 66 63



Turn Type Perm pm+ov Perm


Permitted Phases 6 2 3

Actuated Green, G (s) 10.4 10.4 10.7 18.3 7.6 7.6

Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 11.8 11.8 20.3 8.5 8.5

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.72 0.30 0.30

Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 572 1476 1476 1583 1005 433

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.05 0.02

v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.12 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.43 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.07 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 4.9 4.9 1.3 7.1 7.0

Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Delay (s) 6.4 4.9 4.9 1.3 7.1 7.0

Level of Service A A A A A A


Approach LOS A A A









4: Nobel Dr. & Regents Rd. PM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5479 3204 3421 1742 1829 4551 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5479 3204 3421 1742 1829 4551 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 118 631 100 201 829 89 83 127 124 248 468 278


Adj. Flow (vph) 128 686 109 218 901 97 90 138 135 270 509 302









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 267 1698 280 1084 552 140 1662 168 1356 647

v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 0.14 c0.07 c0.26 0.05 0.04 c0.15 c0.14


v/c Ratio 0.48 0.46 0.78 0.83 0.06 0.64 0.11 1.61 0.38 0.20

Uniform Delay, d1 49.3 31.1 50.0 35.5 26.6 50.2 23.5 50.7 24.9 23.0



Delay (s) 33.5 34.2 61.8 42.9 26.8 57.6 23.7 349.8 25.7 23.7

Level of Service C C E D C E C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 34.1 45.0 32.1 106.1

Approach LOS C D C F


HCM Average Control Delay 59.3 HCM Level of Service E



Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B




5: Nobel Dr. & Lebon Dr. PM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4809 1711 5037 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4809 1711 5037 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 73 793 134 165 977 65 125 151 110 102 275 65


Adj. Flow (vph) 79 862 146 179 1062 71 136 164 120 111 299 71









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 1919 321 2662 263 647 289 311 622 477

v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.21 c0.10 0.22 c0.04 0.04 0.03 c0.09 0.00


v/c Ratio 0.42 0.52 0.56 0.42 0.52 0.25 0.07 0.36 0.48 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 25.5 41.3 16.0 49.3 39.7 38.4 47.6 40.6 32.3



Delay (s) 51.5 26.4 47.8 6.9 50.0 40.4 38.8 47.8 42.0 32.4

Level of Service D C D A D D D D D C

Approach Delay (s) 28.3 12.5 43.0 41.9

Approach LOS C B D D









43: Berino Ct & Regents Rd. PM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 3497 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1703 3497 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 34 28 224 19 163 510


Adj. Flow (vph) 37 30 243 21 177 554



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 195 1785 295 2642

v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.07 c0.10 c0.16

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.21 0.15 0.60 0.21

Uniform Delay, d1 23.1 7.5 22.2 2.2



Delay (s) 23.7 7.5 25.6 2.2

Level of Service C A C A


Approach LOS C A A









44: Arriba St & Regents Rd. PM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3360 1770 3274 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3360 1770 3274 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 81 152 14 13 128 65 12 8 8 186 31 244


Adj. Flow (vph) 88 165 15 14 139 71 13 9 9 202 34 265





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 219 1639 35 1226 35 267 300 818 665

v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 0.05 0.01 c0.05 0.01 0.00 c0.11 0.01 c0.02

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04

v/c Ratio 0.40 0.11 0.40 0.14 0.37 0.04 0.67 0.04 0.14

Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 9.1 29.7 13.1 29.7 26.0 23.9 18.3 13.4



Delay (s) 26.0 9.1 37.1 13.1 36.3 26.0 29.8 18.3 13.5

Level of Service C A D B D C C B B

Approach Delay (s) 14.7 14.6 30.3 20.4

Approach LOS B B C C









45: Arriba St & Palmila Dr PM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.96 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3341 3235 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.58 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3341 3235 1084 3539

Volume (vph) 325 127 109 145 56 79


Adj. Flow (vph) 353 138 118 158 61 86



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1239 1200 402 1313



v/c Ratio 0.36 0.15 0.15 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 6.5 6.5 6.3



Delay (s) 7.3 6.5 6.7 6.3

Level of Service A A A A


Approach LOS A A A









46: Charmant Dr & Lebon Dr. PM Peak Period




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3332 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 3539 3539 1583 3332 1441

Volume (vph) 158 40 60 196 225 248


Adj. Flow (vph) 172 43 65 213 245 270









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 409 1091 1091 1583 1303 563

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 0.05 c0.09


v/c Ratio 0.42 0.04 0.06 0.13 0.22 0.11

Uniform Delay, d1 7.3 6.4 6.5 1.3 5.4 5.2



Delay (s) 8.0 6.5 6.5 1.4 5.5 5.2



Approach LOS A A A








APPENDIX E

PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – YEAR 2014 CONDITIONS

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 Without TSP

4: Nobel Dr. & Regents Rd. AM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5507 3204 3421 1742 1829 4636 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5507 3204 3421 1742 1829 4636 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 198 493 57 190 426 122 61 376 230 77 192 84


Adj. Flow (vph) 215 536 62 207 463 133 66 409 250 84 209 91









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5

Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 4.4 2.0 6.1 6.1 2.0 5.7 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 1273 277 751 383 127 2157 131 1662 793

v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.11 0.06 c0.14 0.04 c0.12 c0.05 0.06


v/c Ratio 0.66 0.46 0.75 0.62 0.08 0.52 0.27 0.64 0.13 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 48.7 37.0 50.0 39.4 34.7 50.3 18.3 50.4 16.7 16.2



Delay (s) 41.4 40.3 59.2 43.2 35.1 51.8 18.6 58.2 16.9 16.3

Level of Service D D E D D D B E B B

Approach Delay (s) 40.6 46.0 21.6 25.8



HCM Average Control Delay 35.0 HCM Level of Service D







5: Nobel Dr. & Lebon Dr. AM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4856 1711 4974 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4856 1711 4974 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 27 517 46 74 544 93 133 354 138 45 57 36


Adj. Flow (vph) 29 562 50 80 591 101 145 385 150 49 62 39









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 2333 119 2514 323 849 380 249 681 484



v/c Ratio 0.20 0.26 0.67 0.27 0.45 0.45 0.09 0.20 0.09 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 17.3 50.9 15.9 47.4 36.9 33.7 48.6 36.0 31.6



Delay (s) 51.8 17.5 61.0 8.5 47.8 38.1 34.1 48.8 36.1 31.6

Level of Service D B E A D D C D D C

Approach Delay (s) 19.1 14.0 39.3 39.1










43: Berino Ct & Regents Rd. AM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.96 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1664 3401 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1664 3401 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 70 152 301 106 280 187


Adj. Flow (vph) 76 165 327 115 304 203



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 313 1195 408 2330

v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.12 c0.17 0.06

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.35 0.75 0.09

Uniform Delay, d1 19.0 12.5 18.6 3.2



Delay (s) 20.4 12.7 25.9 3.2

Level of Service C B C A


Approach LOS C B B









44: Arriba St & Regents Rd. AM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3485 1770 3244 1770 3380 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3485 1770 3244 1770 3380 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 142 73 8 15 114 143 19 26 11 172 17 87


Adj. Flow (vph) 154 79 9 16 124 155 21 28 12 187 18 95





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 1794 32 1236 35 261 291 786 681


v/s Ratio Perm 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.57 0.05 0.50 0.15 0.60 0.11 0.64 0.02 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 8.6 34.6 14.4 34.6 30.5 27.7 21.6 14.2



Delay (s) 30.9 8.6 46.3 14.5 60.2 30.7 32.5 21.6 14.2

Level of Service C A D B E C C C B

Approach Delay (s) 22.8 16.2 40.9 26.1










45: Arriba St & Palmila Dr AM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3288 3174 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.60 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3288 3174 1115 3539

Volume (vph) 132 98 71 156 59 52


Adj. Flow (vph) 143 107 77 170 64 57



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 878 1605 564 1790



v/c Ratio 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 4.5 4.6 4.4



Delay (s) 10.1 4.6 4.7 4.4



Approach LOS B A A









46: Charmant Dr & Lebon Dr. AM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3347 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1372 3539 3539 1583 3347 1441

Volume (vph) 230 40 28 255 66 63


Adj. Flow (vph) 250 43 30 277 72 68









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 577 1488 1488 1583 993 428

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.05 0.02


v/c Ratio 0.43 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.08 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 5.8 4.8 4.8 1.3 7.2 7.1



Delay (s) 6.3 4.8 4.8 1.3 7.2 7.1



Approach LOS A A A









4: Nobel Dr. & Regents Rd. PM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5503 3204 3421 1742 1829 4504 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5503 3204 3421 1742 1829 4504 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 163 824 100 269 1017 134 83 160 202 303 557 307


Adj. Flow (vph) 177 896 109 292 1105 146 90 174 220 329 605 334









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 1725 286 1063 541 140 1645 158 1337 638



v/c Ratio 0.58 0.57 1.02 1.04 0.11 0.64 0.15 2.08 0.45 0.25

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 32.2 51.0 38.6 27.5 50.2 23.9 51.0 26.2 24.0



Delay (s) 29.3 32.0 109.7 77.0 27.9 57.6 24.1 559.0 27.3 25.0

Level of Service C C F E C E C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 31.6 78.5 30.3 164.6

Approach LOS C E C F


HCM Average Control Delay 85.3 HCM Level of Service F



Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C




5: Nobel Dr. & Lebon Dr. PM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4826 1711 5041 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4826 1711 5041 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 73 973 134 216 1137 71 125 151 165 108 275 65


Adj. Flow (vph) 79 1058 146 235 1236 77 136 164 179 117 299 71









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 1637 423 2665 263 647 289 311 622 477



v/c Ratio 0.42 0.73 0.56 0.49 0.52 0.25 0.11 0.38 0.48 0.08

Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 32.4 36.8 16.8 49.3 39.7 38.7 47.7 40.6 32.4



Delay (s) 51.5 35.3 38.7 7.3 50.0 40.4 39.2 48.0 42.0 32.4

Level of Service D D D A D D D D D C

Approach Delay (s) 36.3 12.1 42.7 42.0

Approach LOS D B D D









43: Berino Ct & Regents Rd. PM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1690 3507 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1690 3507 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 34 38 304 19 198 610


Adj. Flow (vph) 37 41 330 21 215 663



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 241 1433 390 2496

v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.10 c0.12 c0.19

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.18 0.24 0.55 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 10.2 18.2 2.8



Delay (s) 20.2 10.3 19.9 2.9

Level of Service C B B A


Approach LOS C B A









44: Arriba St & Regents Rd. PM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3320 1770 3331 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3320 1770 3331 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 121 152 14 13 128 90 12 13 8 211 41 294


Adj. Flow (vph) 132 165 15 14 139 98 13 14 9 229 45 320





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 249 1640 34 1155 32 253 312 830 697


v/s Ratio Perm 0.05

v/c Ratio 0.53 0.11 0.41 0.15 0.41 0.06 0.73 0.05 0.17

Uniform Delay, d1 24.7 9.2 30.0 13.9 30.0 26.5 24.1 18.3 12.9



Delay (s) 26.8 9.2 37.9 13.9 38.2 26.6 32.7 18.4 13.0

Level of Service C A D B D C C B B

Approach Delay (s) 16.7 15.3 30.8 21.0

Approach LOS B B C C









45: Arriba St & Palmila Dr PM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.96 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3346 3226 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.57 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3346 3226 1056 3539

Volume (vph) 360 132 114 165 61 84


Adj. Flow (vph) 391 143 124 179 66 91



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1271 1184 388 1299



v/c Ratio 0.39 0.16 0.17 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 6.7 6.8 6.5



Delay (s) 7.3 6.8 7.0 6.5



Approach LOS A A A









46: Charmant Dr & Lebon Dr. PM Peak Hour




Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3333 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 3539 3539 1583 3333 1441

Volume (vph) 178 40 60 216 245 268


Adj. Flow (vph) 193 43 65 235 266 291









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 414 1104 1104 1583 1291 558

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 0.06 c0.09


v/c Ratio 0.47 0.04 0.06 0.15 0.24 0.12

Uniform Delay, d1 7.4 6.4 6.4 1.3 5.5 5.2



Delay (s) 8.2 6.4 6.4 1.4 5.6 5.3



Approach LOS A A A








HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With EB TSP





Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5507 3204 3421 1742 1829 4636 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5507 3204 3421 1742 1829 4636 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 198 493 57 190 426 122 61 376 230 77 192 84


Adj. Flow (vph) 215 536 62 207 463 133 66 409 250 84 209 91









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1726 143 1011 515 126 1995 122 1523 727

v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.11 c0.06 c0.14 0.04 c0.12 c0.05 0.06


v/c Ratio 1.04 0.34 1.45 0.46 0.08 0.52 0.28 0.69 0.14 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 52.5 29.5 53.5 32.1 28.4 50.4 20.7 51.0 19.3 18.6



Delay (s) 116.7 36.3 289.6 33.6 28.7 52.2 21.0 63.1 19.4 18.7

Level of Service F D F C C D C E B B

Approach Delay (s) 57.5 98.8 23.9 28.8

Approach LOS E F C C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4856 1711 4974 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4856 1711 4974 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 27 517 46 74 544 93 133 354 138 45 57 36


Adj. Flow (vph) 29 562 50 80 591 101 145 385 150 49 62 39









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 2497 119 2682 229 839 375 145 666 477



v/c Ratio 0.20 0.24 0.67 0.25 0.63 0.46 0.09 0.34 0.09 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 15.1 50.9 13.8 50.6 37.2 34.0 52.0 36.4 32.0



Delay (s) 51.8 15.3 66.6 6.6 54.7 38.4 34.3 52.5 36.5 32.0


Approach Delay (s) 17.0 12.8 41.0 40.5














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.96 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1664 3401 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1664 3401 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 70 152 301 106 280 187


Adj. Flow (vph) 76 165 327 115 304 203



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 1717 385 2698

v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.12 c0.17 0.06

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.24 0.79 0.08

Uniform Delay, d1 39.4 14.0 37.0 3.0



Delay (s) 43.9 14.3 47.3 3.1

Level of Service D B D A


Approach LOS D B C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3485 1770 3244 1770 3380 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3485 1770 3244 1770 3380 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 142 73 8 15 114 143 19 26 11 172 17 87


Adj. Flow (vph) 154 79 9 16 124 155 21 28 12 187 18 95





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 220 1961 31 1480 59 278 283 738 597


v/s Ratio Perm 0.01

v/c Ratio 0.70 0.04 0.52 0.13 0.36 0.10 0.66 0.02 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 37.8 8.8 43.9 14.2 42.6 38.3 35.6 28.4 20.4



Delay (s) 47.5 8.9 57.6 14.4 46.3 38.4 41.2 28.4 20.4

Level of Service D A E B D D D C C

Approach Delay (s) 33.4 16.7 41.1 33.9














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3288 3174 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.60 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3288 3174 1115 3539

Volume (vph) 132 98 71 156 59 52


Adj. Flow (vph) 143 107 77 170 64 57



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 475 2402 844 2678

v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.06 0.02

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06

v/c Ratio 0.33 0.09 0.08 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 2.6 2.5 2.4



Delay (s) 31.6 2.6 2.7 2.4

Level of Service C A A A


Approach LOS C A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3347 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1372 3539 3539 1583 3347 1441

Volume (vph) 230 40 28 255 66 63


Adj. Flow (vph) 250 43 30 277 72 68









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 381 982 982 1583 2041 879

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.11 0.03


v/c Ratio 0.66 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.04 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 18.8 18.7 0.5 5.5 5.5



Delay (s) 26.7 18.8 18.7 0.6 5.6 5.6

Level of Service C B B A A A


Approach LOS C A A








HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2014 With WB TSP





Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5507 3204 3421 1742 1829 4636 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5507 3204 3421 1742 1829 4636 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 198 493 57 190 426 122 61 376 230 77 192 84


Adj. Flow (vph) 215 536 62 207 463 133 66 409 250 84 209 91









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 326 1637 338 1042 530 126 1788 122 1365 651

v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.11 0.06 c0.14 0.04 c0.12 c0.05 0.06


v/c Ratio 0.66 0.36 0.61 0.44 0.08 0.52 0.32 0.69 0.15 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 48.7 30.9 47.9 31.3 27.7 50.4 24.1 51.0 22.5 21.6



Delay (s) 37.5 34.4 50.2 32.7 28.0 52.2 24.5 63.1 22.7 21.7

Level of Service D C D C C D C E C C

Approach Delay (s) 35.2 36.4 27.0 31.3














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4856 1711 4974 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4856 1711 4974 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 27 517 46 74 544 93 133 354 138 45 57 36


Adj. Flow (vph) 29 562 50 80 591 101 145 385 150 49 62 39









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 143 1708 118 1870 535 1322 592 249 891 591



v/c Ratio 0.20 0.35 0.68 0.36 0.27 0.29 0.09 0.20 0.07 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.6 26.9 50.9 25.2 40.7 25.5 23.6 48.6 30.4 26.5



Delay (s) 51.8 27.4 45.7 16.3 40.8 26.1 23.9 48.8 30.5 26.5

Level of Service D C D B D C C D C C

Approach Delay (s) 28.5 19.4 28.7 35.4

Approach LOS C B C D













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.96 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1664 3401 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1664 3401 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 70 152 301 106 280 187


Adj. Flow (vph) 76 165 327 115 304 203



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 262 1717 385 2698

v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.12 c0.17 0.06

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.62 0.24 0.79 0.08

Uniform Delay, d1 39.4 14.0 37.0 3.0



Delay (s) 43.9 14.3 47.3 3.1



Approach LOS D B C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3485 1770 3244 1770 3380 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3485 1770 3244 1770 3380 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 142 73 8 15 114 143 19 26 11 172 17 87


Adj. Flow (vph) 154 79 9 16 124 155 21 28 12 187 18 95





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251 988 56 563 58 379 702 1684 1047


v/s Ratio Perm 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.61 0.08 0.29 0.27 0.36 0.08 0.27 0.01 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 36.7 23.9 43.0 32.6 43.1 36.2 18.5 12.6 6.9



Delay (s) 41.1 24.0 45.8 32.8 46.9 36.3 18.7 12.6 6.9

Level of Service D C D C D D B B A

Approach Delay (s) 34.9 33.6 39.9 14.6

Approach LOS C C D B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3288 3174 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.60 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3288 3174 1115 3539

Volume (vph) 132 98 71 156 59 52


Adj. Flow (vph) 143 107 77 170 64 57



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2199 643 226 717



v/c Ratio 0.10 0.17 0.28 0.08

Uniform Delay, d1 3.6 20.5 21.0 20.1



Delay (s) 3.7 20.6 21.7 20.1

Level of Service A C C C


Approach LOS A C C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3347 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1372 3539 3539 1583 3347 1441

Volume (vph) 230 40 28 255 66 63


Adj. Flow (vph) 250 43 30 277 72 68









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 955 2464 2464 1583 584 251

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.03 0.02


v/c Ratio 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.13 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 3.5 2.9 2.9 0.6 21.6 21.2



Delay (s) 3.6 2.9 2.9 0.7 21.7 21.2

Level of Service A A A A C C


Approach LOS A A C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5503 3204 3421 1742 1829 4504 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5503 3204 3421 1742 1829 4504 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 163 824 100 269 1017 134 83 160 202 303 557 307


Adj. Flow (vph) 177 896 109 292 1105 146 90 174 220 329 605 334









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1479 286 1011 515 140 1846 158 1495 713



v/c Ratio 0.86 0.67 1.02 1.09 0.11 0.64 0.16 2.08 0.40 0.27

Uniform Delay, d1 52.0 36.5 51.0 39.4 28.7 50.2 20.9 51.0 22.5 21.1



Delay (s) 57.0 41.2 109.7 96.6 29.2 57.6 21.1 559.0 23.1 21.7

Level of Service E D F F C E C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 43.6 92.7 27.8 161.8

Approach LOS D F C F













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4826 1711 5041 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4826 1711 5041 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 73 973 134 216 1137 71 125 151 165 108 275 65


Adj. Flow (vph) 79 1058 146 235 1236 77 136 164 179 117 299 71









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 1853 400 2822 172 679 304 178 613 472



v/c Ratio 0.42 0.64 0.59 0.46 0.79 0.24 0.11 0.66 0.49 0.12

Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 28.2 38.1 14.7 52.4 38.9 37.9 52.0 40.8 33.0



Delay (s) 51.5 29.9 49.7 6.0 72.6 39.5 38.4 58.5 42.3 33.1

Level of Service D C D A E D D E D C

Approach Delay (s) 31.2 12.7 48.5 44.9














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1690 3507 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1690 3507 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 34 38 304 19 198 610


Adj. Flow (vph) 37 41 330 21 215 663



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 194 1953 325 2791

v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.10 c0.12 c0.19

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.21 0.18 0.66 0.24

Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 9.0 31.4 2.3



Delay (s) 33.8 9.2 36.4 2.3

Level of Service C A D A


Approach LOS C A B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3320 1770 3331 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3320 1770 3331 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 121 152 14 13 128 90 12 13 8 211 41 294


Adj. Flow (vph) 132 165 15 14 139 98 13 14 9 229 45 320





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 681 1954 28 633 28 210 315 796 1038


v/s Ratio Perm 0.05

v/c Ratio 0.19 0.09 0.50 0.25 0.46 0.07 0.73 0.06 0.19

Uniform Delay, d1 17.8 8.9 42.5 30.0 42.5 38.4 33.8 26.5 7.5



Delay (s) 18.5 8.9 55.9 30.2 54.2 38.5 41.9 26.5 7.6

Level of Service B A E C D D D C A

Approach Delay (s) 13.0 31.6 44.2 22.3

Approach LOS B C D C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.96 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3346 3226 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.57 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3346 3226 1056 3539

Volume (vph) 360 132 114 165 61 84


Adj. Flow (vph) 391 143 124 179 66 91



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 713 2245 735 2463

v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 c0.08 0.03

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06

v/c Ratio 0.69 0.11 0.09 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 4.4 4.3 4.2



Delay (s) 34.6 4.4 4.6 4.2



Approach LOS C A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.95 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3332 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 3539 3539 1583 3332 1441

Volume (vph) 178 40 60 216 245 268


Adj. Flow (vph) 193 43 65 235 266 291









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 333 888 888 1583 2120 917

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 c0.09 0.10


v/c Ratio 0.58 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.16 0.12

Uniform Delay, d1 23.3 20.1 20.3 0.5 5.2 5.1



Delay (s) 25.7 20.2 20.3 0.6 5.4 5.4

Level of Service C C C A A A


Approach LOS C A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5503 3204 3421 1742 1829 4504 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5503 3204 3421 1742 1829 4504 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 163 824 100 269 1017 134 83 160 202 303 557 307


Adj. Flow (vph) 177 896 109 292 1105 146 90 174 220 329 605 334









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 305 1543 392 1063 541 140 1645 158 1337 638



v/c Ratio 0.58 0.64 0.74 1.04 0.11 0.64 0.15 2.08 0.45 0.23

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 35.4 47.5 38.6 27.5 50.2 23.9 51.0 26.2 23.8



Delay (s) 29.4 36.2 54.1 77.0 27.9 57.6 24.1 559.0 27.3 24.7

Level of Service C D D E C E C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 35.1 68.0 30.3 164.6

Approach LOS D E C F













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4826 1711 5041 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4826 1711 5041 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 73 973 134 216 1137 71 125 151 165 108 275 65


Adj. Flow (vph) 79 1058 146 235 1236 77 136 164 179 117 299 71









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 186 1637 338 2412 458 829 371 311 587 458

v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.25 c0.14 0.26 c0.04 0.04 c0.04 c0.09 0.00


v/c Ratio 0.42 0.73 0.70 0.54 0.30 0.20 0.11 0.38 0.51 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 50.9 32.4 41.8 20.6 43.0 35.1 34.3 47.7 41.6 33.0



Delay (s) 51.5 35.3 44.2 9.5 44.6 35.4 34.7 48.0 43.3 33.0

Level of Service D D D A D D C D D C

Approach Delay (s) 36.3 14.7 37.8 42.9














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1690 3507 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1690 3507 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 34 38 304 19 198 610


Adj. Flow (vph) 37 41 330 21 215 663



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 194 1953 325 2791

v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.10 c0.12 c0.19

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.21 0.18 0.66 0.24

Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 9.0 31.4 2.3



Delay (s) 33.8 9.2 36.4 2.3

Level of Service C A D A


Approach LOS C A B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3495 1770 3320 1770 3331 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3495 1770 3320 1770 3331 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 121 152 14 13 128 90 12 13 8 211 41 294


Adj. Flow (vph) 132 165 15 14 139 98 13 14 9 229 45 320





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 1058 30 620 30 682 524 1712 1047


v/s Ratio Perm 0.10

v/c Ratio 0.56 0.17 0.47 0.25 0.43 0.02 0.44 0.03 0.19

Uniform Delay, d1 36.1 22.8 43.3 30.9 43.3 28.2 25.3 12.0 7.4



Delay (s) 39.2 22.8 54.3 31.1 53.0 28.3 25.9 12.0 7.5

Level of Service D C D C D C C B A

Approach Delay (s) 29.8 32.4 37.2 14.9

Approach LOS C C D B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.96 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3346 3226 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.53 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3346 3226 989 3539

Volume (vph) 360 132 114 165 61 84


Adj. Flow (vph) 391 143 124 179 66 91



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2231 662 203 726



v/c Ratio 0.23 0.24 0.33 0.13

Uniform Delay, d1 4.1 20.7 21.1 20.2



Delay (s) 4.3 20.9 22.1 20.3

Level of Service A C C C


Approach LOS A C C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3337 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1327 3539 3539 1583 3337 1441

Volume (vph) 178 40 60 216 245 268


Adj. Flow (vph) 193 43 65 235 266 291









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 874 2331 2331 1583 713 308

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 0.03 c0.09


v/c Ratio 0.22 0.02 0.03 0.15 0.42 0.13

Uniform Delay, d1 4.3 3.7 3.7 0.6 21.3 19.9



Delay (s) 4.4 3.7 3.7 0.6 21.7 20.1

Level of Service A A A A C C


Approach LOS A A C








APPENDIX F

PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS – YEAR 2030 CONDITIONS






Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5442 3204 3421 1742 1829 4709 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5442 3204 3421 1742 1829 4709 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 228 567 125 209 500 134 100 650 253 85 325 97


Adj. Flow (vph) 248 616 136 227 543 146 109 707 275 92 353 105









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 338 1715 283 1032 526 168 1808 123 1280 611



v/c Ratio 0.73 0.42 0.80 0.53 0.08 0.65 0.51 0.75 0.28 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 30.3 50.1 32.5 28.0 49.1 26.4 51.1 25.4 23.3



Delay (s) 43.4 38.4 64.3 34.4 28.3 55.4 27.5 70.4 25.9 23.5

Level of Service D D E C C E C E C C

Approach Delay (s) 39.6 40.8 30.3 32.9



HCM Average Control Delay 36.0 HCM Level of Service D











Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4854 1711 4961 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4854 1711 4961 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 35 650 60 96 626 121 160 460 159 52 74 43


Adj. Flow (vph) 38 707 65 104 680 132 174 500 173 57 80 47









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 152 2223 167 2520 349 829 371 249 637 466

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.16 c0.06 0.16 c0.05 c0.14 0.02 0.02 0.00


v/c Ratio 0.25 0.34 0.62 0.31 0.50 0.60 0.11 0.23 0.13 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.4 19.5 48.6 16.1 47.0 38.8 34.3 48.8 37.4 32.5



Delay (s) 51.7 19.9 59.3 7.0 47.4 41.2 34.7 48.9 37.6 32.5


Approach Delay (s) 21.4 13.0 41.1 39.8














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.98 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1664 3452 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1664 3452 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 74 160 566 111 294 400


Adj. Flow (vph) 80 174 615 121 320 435



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 320 1405 386 2428

v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 c0.21 c0.18 0.12

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.54 0.52 0.83 0.18

Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 14.6 24.5 3.7



Delay (s) 25.8 14.9 38.2 3.7

Level of Service C B D A


Approach LOS C B B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3322 1770 3244 1770 3521 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3322 1770 3244 1770 3521 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 149 77 53 16 120 150 126 344 12 181 225 91


Adj. Flow (vph) 162 84 58 17 130 163 137 374 13 197 245 99





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 1212 34 778 234 777 284 880 715


v/s Ratio Perm 0.02

v/c Ratio 0.64 0.09 0.50 0.22 0.59 0.50 0.69 0.28 0.05

Uniform Delay, d1 27.4 14.2 33.0 20.7 27.7 23.2 27.0 20.6 12.8



Delay (s) 32.5 14.2 44.1 20.9 31.5 23.7 34.1 20.8 12.8

Level of Service C B D C C C C C B

Approach Delay (s) 24.0 22.2 25.7 24.2

Approach LOS C C C C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3229 3176 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.59 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3229 3176 1101 3539

Volume (vph) 139 197 75 164 119 55


Adj. Flow (vph) 151 214 82 178 129 60



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 918 1605 556 1788



v/c Ratio 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.03

Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 4.9 5.3 4.7



Delay (s) 10.5 4.9 5.5 4.7



Approach LOS B A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3393 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1369 3539 3539 1583 3393 1441

Volume (vph) 242 42 29 383 99 66


Adj. Flow (vph) 263 46 32 416 108 72









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 621 1606 1606 1583 1157 491

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.09 0.03


v/c Ratio 0.42 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.10 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 7.2 5.9 5.9 1.0 8.8 8.6



Delay (s) 7.7 5.9 5.9 1.1 8.8 8.6



Approach LOS A A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5464 3204 3421 1742 1829 4588 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5464 3204 3421 1742 1829 4588 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 187 948 173 296 1200 147 95 277 222 333 836 353


Adj. Flow (vph) 203 1030 188 322 1304 160 103 301 241 362 909 384









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 317 1756 286 1078 549 165 1639 158 1261 602



v/c Ratio 0.64 0.68 1.13 1.21 0.14 0.62 0.25 2.29 0.72 0.40

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 33.0 51.0 38.4 27.5 49.1 25.4 51.0 31.2 27.0



Delay (s) 28.7 31.8 142.5 141.5 28.1 54.3 25.8 651.6 34.8 28.9

Level of Service C C F F C D C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 31.4 131.5 30.4 168.4

Approach LOS C F C F





Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.6% ICU Level of Service D








Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4820 1711 5035 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4820 1711 5035 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 95 1168 174 281 1308 92 150 196 190 124 358 78


Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1270 189 305 1422 100 163 213 207 135 389 85









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 1635 388 2482 277 722 323 311 675 529



v/c Ratio 0.44 0.88 0.79 0.61 0.59 0.30 0.13 0.43 0.58 0.12

Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 34.9 40.7 20.6 49.2 38.3 37.0 47.9 40.2 30.2



Delay (s) 50.2 42.1 44.0 10.1 51.3 39.0 37.6 48.3 42.3 30.3

Level of Service D D D B D D D D D C

Approach Delay (s) 42.6 15.7 41.9 42.0














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1691 3521 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1691 3521 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 36 40 572 20 208 1147


Adj. Flow (vph) 39 43 622 22 226 1247



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 277 1552 356 2501

v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.18 c0.13 c0.35

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.17 0.41 0.63 0.50

Uniform Delay, d1 22.2 11.8 22.6 4.1



Delay (s) 22.5 12.0 26.3 4.3

Level of Service C B C A


Approach LOS C B A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3344 1770 3320 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3344 1770 3320 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 127 160 93 14 134 95 150 250 8 222 542 309


Adj. Flow (vph) 138 174 101 15 146 103 163 272 9 241 589 336





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 272 1190 32 730 245 775 353 993 770

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.07 0.01 c0.05 0.09 0.08 c0.14 c0.17 0.03

v/s Ratio Perm 0.06

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.19 0.47 0.23 0.67 0.36 0.68 0.59 0.19

Uniform Delay, d1 30.0 17.2 37.6 24.8 31.6 25.5 28.7 24.0 13.5



Delay (s) 31.5 17.3 48.0 24.9 38.3 25.8 34.1 24.9 13.6

Level of Service C B D C D C C C B

Approach Delay (s) 22.0 26.3 30.4 23.6

Approach LOS C C C C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3294 3225 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.56 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3294 3225 1041 3539

Volume (vph) 378 265 120 173 200 88


Adj. Flow (vph) 411 288 130 188 217 96



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1205 1324 427 1453



v/c Ratio 0.48 0.16 0.51 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 8.7 6.6 7.9 6.4



Delay (s) 9.0 6.7 8.8 6.4



Approach LOS A A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3401 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1323 3539 3539 1583 3401 1441

Volume (vph) 187 42 63 324 400 281


Adj. Flow (vph) 203 46 68 352 435 305









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 429 1149 1149 1583 1508 639

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 0.10 c0.14


v/c Ratio 0.47 0.04 0.06 0.22 0.32 0.17

Uniform Delay, d1 9.3 8.0 8.0 1.1 6.2 5.8



Delay (s) 10.1 8.0 8.0 1.2 6.3 5.9

Level of Service B A A A A A


Approach LOS A A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5442 3204 3421 1742 1829 4709 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5442 3204 3421 1742 1829 4709 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 228 567 125 209 500 134 100 650 253 85 325 97


Adj. Flow (vph) 248 616 136 227 543 146 109 707 275 92 353 105









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1710 143 1014 516 168 2018 123 1438 686

v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.13 c0.07 c0.16 c0.06 c0.20 0.05 0.10


v/c Ratio 1.20 0.42 1.59 0.54 0.08 0.65 0.46 0.75 0.25 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 52.5 30.4 53.5 33.0 28.4 49.1 22.7 51.1 21.9 20.3



Delay (s) 168.4 40.5 348.3 35.0 28.7 55.4 23.5 70.4 22.2 20.4

Level of Service F D F C C E C E C C

Approach Delay (s) 72.2 111.6 26.7 29.9

Approach LOS E F C C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4854 1711 4961 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4854 1711 4961 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 35 650 60 96 626 121 160 460 159 52 74 43


Adj. Flow (vph) 38 707 65 104 680 132 174 500 173 57 80 47









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 152 2392 163 2684 243 823 368 145 637 466



v/c Ratio 0.25 0.32 0.64 0.30 0.72 0.61 0.11 0.39 0.13 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.4 17.1 48.8 14.0 50.6 39.0 34.5 52.1 37.4 32.5



Delay (s) 51.7 17.4 70.3 5.1 58.7 41.4 34.9 52.7 37.6 32.5

Level of Service D B E A E D C D D C

Approach Delay (s) 19.1 12.5 43.6 41.0














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.98 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1664 3452 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1664 3452 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 74 160 566 111 294 400


Adj. Flow (vph) 80 174 615 121 320 435



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 1664 396 2634

v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.21 c0.18 0.12

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.60 0.44 0.81 0.17

Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 17.5 37.9 3.8



Delay (s) 42.2 18.3 49.3 4.0



Approach LOS D B C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3322 1770 3244 1770 3521 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3322 1770 3244 1770 3521 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 149 77 53 16 120 150 126 344 12 181 225 91


Adj. Flow (vph) 162 84 58 17 130 163 137 374 13 197 245 99





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 584 1543 55 537 202 633 284 800 945


v/s Ratio Perm 0.02

v/c Ratio 0.28 0.07 0.31 0.29 0.68 0.61 0.69 0.31 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 14.4 46.1 35.6 41.4 36.7 38.6 31.3 9.9



Delay (s) 25.2 14.5 49.3 35.9 50.1 38.4 45.7 31.5 9.9

Level of Service C B D D D D D C A

Approach Delay (s) 20.2 36.6 41.5 32.8

Approach LOS C D D C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3229 3176 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.59 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3229 3176 1101 3539

Volume (vph) 139 197 75 164 119 55


Adj. Flow (vph) 151 214 82 178 129 60



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 473 2398 831 2672



v/c Ratio 0.39 0.09 0.16 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 31.3 2.6 2.8 2.5



Delay (s) 31.9 2.6 3.2 2.5



Approach LOS C A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3391 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1273 3539 3539 1583 3391 1441

Volume (vph) 242 42 29 383 99 66


Adj. Flow (vph) 263 46 32 416 108 72









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 372 1034 1034 1583 2024 860

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.16 0.04


v/c Ratio 0.71 0.04 0.03 0.26 0.06 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 22.8 18.3 18.2 0.6 6.1 6.0



Delay (s) 28.8 18.3 18.3 0.7 6.1 6.1



Approach LOS C A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5442 3204 3421 1742 1829 4709 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5442 3204 3421 1742 1829 4709 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 228 567 125 209 500 134 100 650 253 85 325 97


Adj. Flow (vph) 248 616 136 227 543 146 109 707 275 92 353 105









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 338 1467 429 1032 526 168 1808 123 1280 611



v/c Ratio 0.73 0.49 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.65 0.51 0.75 0.28 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 34.4 45.2 32.5 28.0 49.1 26.4 51.1 25.4 23.3



Delay (s) 38.4 38.0 49.8 34.4 28.3 55.4 27.5 70.4 25.9 23.5

Level of Service D D D C C E C E C C

Approach Delay (s) 38.1 37.2 30.3 32.9














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4854 1711 4961 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4854 1711 4961 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 35 650 60 96 626 121 160 460 159 52 74 43


Adj. Flow (vph) 38 707 65 104 680 132 174 500 173 57 80 47









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 152 1630 144 1847 664 1326 593 249 761 529



v/c Ratio 0.25 0.47 0.72 0.43 0.26 0.38 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.02

Uniform Delay, d1 51.4 29.3 50.0 26.2 37.2 26.4 23.7 48.8 34.0 29.4



Delay (s) 51.7 30.3 50.1 15.9 38.2 27.2 24.0 48.9 34.1 29.4

Level of Service D C D B D C C D C C

Approach Delay (s) 31.3 19.7 28.8 37.5

Approach LOS C B C D













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.98 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1664 3452 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1664 3452 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 74 160 566 111 294 400


Adj. Flow (vph) 80 174 615 121 320 435



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 1664 396 2634

v/s Ratio Prot c0.11 c0.21 c0.18 0.12

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.60 0.44 0.81 0.17

Uniform Delay, d1 38.9 17.5 37.9 3.8



Delay (s) 42.2 18.3 49.3 4.0



Approach LOS D B C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3322 1770 3244 1770 3521 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3322 1770 3244 1770 3521 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 149 77 53 16 120 150 126 344 12 181 225 91


Adj. Flow (vph) 162 84 58 17 130 163 137 374 13 197 245 99





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 892 54 517 230 1347 285 1465 939

v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.03 0.01 c0.05 0.08 c0.11 c0.11 c0.07 0.01

v/s Ratio Perm 0.03

v/c Ratio 0.66 0.11 0.31 0.30 0.60 0.29 0.69 0.17 0.06

Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 28.1 48.3 37.8 41.7 21.8 40.3 18.8 10.5



Delay (s) 47.6 28.1 51.6 38.1 45.8 21.9 47.3 19.0 10.5

Level of Service D C D D D C D B B

Approach Delay (s) 38.5 38.8 28.2 27.8














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.91 0.90 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3229 3176 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.59 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3229 3176 1096 3539

Volume (vph) 139 197 75 164 119 55


Adj. Flow (vph) 151 214 82 178 129 60



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2078 739 255 823



v/c Ratio 0.14 0.17 0.51 0.07

Uniform Delay, d1 4.5 19.8 21.5 19.3



Delay (s) 4.6 19.9 23.1 19.4

Level of Service A B C B


Approach LOS A B C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3393 1441

Flt Permitted 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1369 3539 3539 1583 3393 1441

Volume (vph) 242 42 29 383 99 66


Adj. Flow (vph) 263 46 32 416 108 72









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 858 2217 2217 1583 858 365

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.01 c0.07 0.03


v/c Ratio 0.31 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.13 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 5.7 4.7 4.7 0.6 19.2 18.7



Delay (s) 5.9 4.7 4.7 0.7 19.2 18.7

Level of Service A A A A B B


Approach LOS A A B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5464 3204 3421 1742 1829 4588 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5464 3204 3421 1742 1829 4588 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 187 948 173 296 1200 147 95 277 222 333 836 353


Adj. Flow (vph) 203 1030 188 322 1304 160 103 301 241 362 909 384









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 1512 286 1039 529 165 1843 158 1419 677



v/c Ratio 0.98 0.79 1.13 1.26 0.15 0.62 0.24 2.29 0.64 0.37

Uniform Delay, d1 52.4 37.5 51.0 39.0 28.4 49.1 22.2 51.0 27.0 23.6



Delay (s) 78.6 41.7 142.5 161.7 29.0 54.3 22.5 651.6 28.7 24.6

Level of Service E D F F C D C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 47.0 146.4 27.6 164.0














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4820 1711 5035 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4820 1711 5035 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 95 1168 174 281 1308 92 150 196 190 124 358 78


Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1270 189 305 1422 100 163 213 207 135 389 85









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 1851 368 2648 172 748 335 178 675 529



v/c Ratio 0.44 0.78 0.83 0.57 0.95 0.28 0.15 0.76 0.58 0.15

Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 30.3 42.0 18.0 52.8 37.6 36.6 52.3 40.2 30.5



Delay (s) 50.2 33.6 54.2 7.8 105.3 38.3 37.2 67.3 42.3 30.5

Level of Service D C D A F D D E D C

Approach Delay (s) 34.7 15.6 56.6 46.2

Approach LOS C B E D













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1691 3521 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1691 3521 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 36 40 572 20 208 1147


Adj. Flow (vph) 39 43 622 22 226 1247



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1987 317 2775

v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.18 c0.13 c0.35

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.20 0.32 0.71 0.45

Uniform Delay, d1 38.0 11.5 38.1 3.5



Delay (s) 38.4 11.9 45.5 4.1



Approach LOS D B B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3344 1770 3320 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3344 1770 3320 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 127 160 93 14 134 95 150 250 8 222 542 309


Adj. Flow (vph) 138 174 101 15 146 103 163 272 9 241 589 336





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 559 1495 52 533 255 662 317 790 915

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.07 0.01 c0.05 0.09 0.08 c0.14 c0.17 c0.06

v/s Ratio Perm 0.05

v/c Ratio 0.25 0.15 0.29 0.30 0.64 0.42 0.76 0.75 0.20

Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 16.8 48.6 37.9 41.2 36.6 39.9 37.0 12.2



Delay (s) 27.0 16.8 51.6 38.2 46.4 37.0 50.1 40.8 12.3

Level of Service C B D D D D D D B

Approach Delay (s) 20.2 39.0 40.5 34.5

Approach LOS C D D C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3294 3225 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.56 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3294 3225 1041 3539

Volume (vph) 378 265 120 173 200 88


Adj. Flow (vph) 411 288 130 188 217 96



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 778 2178 703 2391



v/c Ratio 0.72 0.12 0.31 0.04

Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 5.2 6.0 4.9



Delay (s) 35.0 5.2 7.2 4.9

Level of Service D A A A


Approach LOS D A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3396 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1323 3539 3539 1583 3396 1441

Volume (vph) 187 42 63 324 400 281


Adj. Flow (vph) 203 46 68 352 435 305









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 342 915 915 1583 2137 907

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 c0.14 0.14


v/c Ratio 0.59 0.05 0.07 0.22 0.23 0.17

Uniform Delay, d1 23.1 19.8 20.0 0.6 5.7 5.5



Delay (s) 25.9 19.9 20.0 0.6 6.0 5.9



Approach LOS C A A













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 11 15 12 10 11 15 13 11 16 12 12 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3319 5464 3204 3421 1742 1829 4588 1770 3539 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3319 5464 3204 3421 1742 1829 4588 1770 3539 1689

Volume (vph) 187 948 173 296 1200 147 95 277 222 333 836 353


Adj. Flow (vph) 203 1030 188 322 1304 160 103 301 241 362 909 384









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.5 5.5


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 317 1512 429 1078 549 165 1639 158 1261 602



v/c Ratio 0.64 0.79 0.75 1.21 0.14 0.62 0.25 2.29 0.72 0.40

Uniform Delay, d1 48.8 37.5 46.7 38.4 27.5 49.1 25.4 51.0 31.2 27.0



Delay (s) 28.7 38.1 58.2 141.5 28.1 54.3 25.8 651.6 34.8 28.9

Level of Service C D E F C D C F C C

Approach Delay (s) 36.8 116.3 30.4 168.4














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Lane Width 10 11 16 11 12 15 10 13 13 11 10 14

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3204 4820 1711 5035 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3204 4820 1711 5035 3204 3657 1636 3319 3303 1689

Volume (vph) 95 1168 174 281 1308 92 150 196 190 124 358 78


Adj. Flow (vph) 103 1270 189 305 1422 100 163 213 207 135 389 85









Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.2 4.4 5.2 4.4 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 235 1635 304 2234 458 901 403 311 652 517

v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.30 c0.18 0.30 c0.05 0.06 c0.04 c0.12 0.01


v/c Ratio 0.44 0.88 1.00 0.68 0.36 0.24 0.13 0.43 0.60 0.08

Uniform Delay, d1 49.7 34.9 46.1 24.8 43.3 33.8 32.8 47.9 40.9 30.5



Delay (s) 50.2 42.1 63.7 13.5 45.5 34.2 33.3 48.3 43.4 30.5

Level of Service D D E B D C C D D C

Approach Delay (s) 42.6 21.9 37.0 42.7

Approach LOS D C D D













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.93 0.99 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1691 3521 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1691 3521 1770 3539

Volume (vph) 36 40 572 20 208 1147


Adj. Flow (vph) 39 43 622 22 226 1247



Turn Type Prot


Permitted Phases






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 1987 317 2775

v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.18 c0.13 c0.35

v/s Ratio Perm

v/c Ratio 0.20 0.32 0.71 0.45

Uniform Delay, d1 38.0 11.5 38.1 3.5



Delay (s) 38.4 11.9 45.5 4.1



Approach LOS D B B













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900

Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3344 1770 3320 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3344 1770 3320 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583

Volume (vph) 127 160 93 14 134 95 150 250 8 222 542 309


Adj. Flow (vph) 138 174 101 15 146 103 163 272 9 241 589 336





Permitted Phases 4




Clearance Time (s) 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.4


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 228 870 52 534 254 1304 326 1456 916

v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.06 0.01 c0.05 0.09 0.08 c0.14 c0.17 0.03

v/s Ratio Perm 0.09

v/c Ratio 0.61 0.25 0.29 0.30 0.64 0.21 0.74 0.40 0.20

Uniform Delay, d1 42.2 30.0 48.8 38.0 41.5 22.1 39.5 21.3 12.2



Delay (s) 46.7 30.2 51.8 38.3 46.9 22.2 48.0 22.2 12.3

Level of Service D C D D D C D C B

Approach Delay (s) 35.7 39.1 31.3 24.7














Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900


Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.95

Frt 0.94 0.91 1.00 1.00

Flt Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 3294 3225 1770 3539

Flt Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.53 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 3294 3225 987 3539

Volume (vph) 378 265 120 173 200 88


Adj. Flow (vph) 411 288 130 188 217 96



Turn Type Perm


Permitted Phases 6






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1953 944 289 1036



v/c Ratio 0.31 0.20 0.75 0.09

Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 18.6 22.4 18.0



Delay (s) 7.5 18.7 32.9 18.0

Level of Service A B C B


Approach LOS A B C













Lane Configurations

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 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 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91

Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.99 0.85

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3539 1583 3407 1441

Flt Permitted 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00

Satd. Flow (perm) 1323 3539 3539 1583 3407 1441

Volume (vph) 187 42 63 324 400 281


Adj. Flow (vph) 203 46 68 352 435 305









Clearance Time (s) 5.4 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.9


Lane Grp Cap (vph) 816 2183 2183 1583 898 380

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.02 0.06 c0.14


v/c Ratio 0.25 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.52 0.18

Uniform Delay, d1 5.8 5.0 5.0 0.6 21.0 19.0



Delay (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 0.7 21.6 19.2

Level of Service A A A A C B


Approach LOS A A C








addendum to the final negative …...addendum to the final negative declaration / initial study...

Documents