appendix f - el dorado county, californiaedcapps.edcgov.us/planning/projectdocuments/appendix f...

APPENDIX F

Traffic Report

Transportation Engineers

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR

PONTE PALMERO II

El Dorado County CA

Prepared For:

Pacific Oak Development

2452 Bay View Avenue

Carmel, CA 93923

Prepared By:

KDAnderson & Associates, Inc.

3853 Taylor Road, Suite G

Loomis, California 95650

(916) 660-1555

October 21, 2015

5037-003

Ponte Palmero II.rpt

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PONTE PALMERO II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... i

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Purpose and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1

Project Description........................................................................................................................... 1

EXISTING SETTING ................................................................................................................................ 3

Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Study Area Roadways and Intersections .......................................................................................... 3

Level of Service Analysis ................................................................................................................ 3

Existing Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 5

Queuing ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Public Transit ................................................................................................................................... 7

Non-Motorized Transportation ........................................................................................................ 7

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 8

Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 8

Existing Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 11

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (2035) .......................................................................................................... 14

FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS / MITIGATIONS .................................................................... 19

Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 19

Mitigations for Existing Plus Project Conditions .......................................................................... 19

2035 Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 19

Mitigations for 2035 Conditions Plus Project Conditions ............................................................. 19

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................ 21

Traffic Impact Analysis for Ponte Palmero II Page i

Cameron Park, CA (October 21, 2015)

PONTE PALMERO II


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Description. The Ponte Palmero II project is a senior residential care facility proposed

to adjoin the existing Ponte Palmero Phase I facility off of Palmer Drive in the El Dorado County

community of Cameron Park. The project proposes a 60 bed Assisted Living facility (53,690 sf)

and a 44 unit Community Care facility (50,510 sf), as well as an 11,450 sf clubhouse that will be

shared with residents of Ponte Palmero Phase I

Under regular operation the project is expected to generate approximately 249 daily trips on a

weekday basis, with 12 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 20 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

This estimate includes all trips associated with employees, visitors and deliveries.

During construction the project could generate trips as construction employees travel to the site

and construction equipment and materials are delivered by truck. Roughly 35 construction

employees will be on site each day, and each would generate two commute trips (i.e., 70 daily

trips). Materials deliveries will vary over the life or the construction schedule, with roughly 30

truckloads (60 trips) on a peak day. The total site daily trip generation would be in the range of

130 daily trips during construction.

Existing Setting - Traffic. The project is located off of Palmer Drive in the area east of

Cameron Park Drive. The analysis focusses on the operation of the Cameron Park Drive /

Palmer Drive intersection, and new traffic counts conducted on March 17, 2015 indicate that the

intersection operates at LOS B in the a.m. peak hour and LOS B in the p.m. peak hour.

Existing Setting – Non-Automotive. The project site is served by El Dorado County Transit

Route 40, which passes the site on Palmer Drive. Sidewalks exist on Ponte Palmero Drive and

Palmer Drive, and a class II bicycle lane exists on Cameron Park Drive north of the Palmer Drive

intersection.

Existing Plus Project Traffic Impacts. The proposed project will contribute traffic to the

Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection, but Existing Plus Project Level of Service will

be the same as those which exist today. Because LOS B satisfies El Dorado County’s LOS E

minimum, the project’s traffic impact is not significant under El Dorado County standards.

Year 2035 No Project Conditions. The El Dorado County regional travel demand forecasting

model was used as a basis for developing future traffic volume projections at the study

intersection. In the Year 2035 the Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection is projected to

operate at LOS C without the project. However, the 95th

percentile queues in left turn lanes will

exceed available storage. Improvements to increase the length of left turn lanes were evaluated,

and the feasibility of lengthening these lanes is constrained by right of way and by the need to

provide access to adjoining commercial centers.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Ponte Palmero II Page ii


Year 2035 Plus Project Cumulative Impacts. The project will add traffic to the study location,

but resulting Level of Service will remain at LOS C which satisfies the El Dorado County

minimum standard. The project’s cumulative impact based on Level of Service is not

significant.

Because the project does not result in additional locations where 95th percentile queues exceed

the available left turn lane storage, the project’s impact based on queueing is not significant.

The project will contribute its fair share towards area wide circulation system improvements by

paying adopted fees, but no additional mitigation is required.

Traffic Impact Analysis for Ponte Palmero II Page 1


PONTE PALMERO II TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Study Purpose and Objectives

This study evaluates the traffic impacts of Ponte Palmero II, a senior care facility proposed in the

Cameron Park area of El Dorado County. The project involves construction of 50.5 ksf

Community Care building, 53.7 ksf Assisted Living facility and 11,450 club house that will be

shared by Ponte Palmero II and the neighboring Ponte Palmero Phase I, as noted in Figure 1.

Based on direction from El Dorado County this study addresses the following scenarios:

1. Existing (Year 2015) Traffic Conditions

2. Existing (Year 2015) Plus Project Conditions

3. Year 2035 Traffic Conditions without the Project

4. Year 2035 Plus Project Conditions

The objective of this study is to identify those roads and street intersections that may be impacted

by development of this project and to identify applicable mitigation measures for the project.

Project Description

The Ponte Palmero II project includes individual residential units with varying degrees of

residential care along with a new club house. The Community Care facility will provide 44

residential units. The Assisted Living facility will have 32 1-bedroom and 14 2-bedroom units.

The project includes 205 surface parking spaces and an emergency vehicle access road

connecting to Valerio Drive. Primary access would be from Ponte Morino Drive (see figure 3-3,

Site Plan).

The project is located on Ponte Palmero Drive north of its intersection with Palmer Drive.

Regional access is available via US 50 and Palmer Drive. Local access is provided via a

connection to Ponte Palmero Drive near the existing driveway serving Phase I.

figure 1

SITE PLAN

5037-003 LT 10/21/2015

KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.Transportation Engineers



EXISTING SETTING

Study Area

This study addresses traffic conditions at a key intersection that provides access to the site. The

study area limits were selected in consultation with El Dorado County staff and are appropriate

for the anticipated trip generation of this project. Because the project would add fewer than 10

peak hour trips to mainline US 50, analysis of impacts to that facility was not required under

County traffic study guidelines.

Study Area Roadways and Intersections

Cameron Park Drive is an arterial roadway that extends north from an interchange on US 50 to

Green Valley Road. The segment of Cameron Park Drive near the US 50 interchange is a 4 lane

facility, and the roadway narrows to a two-lane highway in the area north of the Palmer Drive

intersection. The posted speed limit on Cameron Park Drive in the immediate area of the project

is 35 mph, and on-street parking is not allowed.

Palmer Drive is a Collector street that extends east for Cameron Park Drive to provide access to

existing office uses and a retail center that adjoins the US 50 / Cameron Park Drive interchange.

Palmer Drive is a two lane roadway with continuous Two-Way Left-Turn (TWLT) lane.

Sidewalk exists on both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted on Palmer Drive and

the posted speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the project is 35 mph.

Ponte Palmero Drive is a local street that extends north from an intersection on Palmer Drive to

provide access to Ponte Palmero Phase I. Ponte Palmero Drive is a two lane street with on-street

parking and sidewalks. The prima facie 25 mph speed limit applies.

The Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection is a “tee” located roughly 500 feet from

the US 50 interchange’s westbound ramp intersection. The intersection is controlled by a traffic

signal. Each Cameron Park Drive approach has two through travel lanes and a separate left turn

lane. The northbound left turn lane accommodates u-turns originating in the adjoining retail

center. The Palmer Drive approach has two left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane.

Level of Service Analysis

Methodology. Level of Service Analysis has been employed to provide a basis for describing

existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of project traffic impacts. Level of

Service measures the quality of traffic flow and is represented by letter designations from "A" to

"F", with a grade of "A" referring to the best conditions, and "F" representing the worst

conditions. The guidelines and analysis methodologies used for this report follow El Dorado

County standards. Local agencies adopt minimum Level of Service standards for their facilities,

and the intersection Levels of Service presented in this analysis are based on the weighted

average total delay per vehicle for the intersection as a whole based on the thresholds shown in

Table 1.



TABLE 1

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

Level of

Service Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Roadway (Daily)

"A" Uncongested operations, all queues

clear in a single-signal cycle.

Delay < 10.0 sec

Little or no delay.

Delay < 10 sec/veh

Completely free flow.

"B" Uncongested operations, all queues

clear in a single cycle.

Delay > 10.0 sec and < 20.0 sec

Short traffic delays.

Delay > 10 sec/veh and

< 15 sec/veh

Free flow, presence of

other vehicles noticeable.

"C" Light congestion, occasional backups

on critical approaches.


Average traffic delays.


< 25 sec/veh

Ability to maneuver and

select operating speed

affected.

"D" Significant congestion of critical

approaches but intersection

functional. Cars required to wait

through more than one cycle during

short peaks. No long queues formed.


Long traffic delays.


< 35 sec/veh

Unstable flow, speeds and

ability to maneuver

restricted.

"E" Severe congestion with some long

standing queues on critical

approaches. Blockage of intersection

may occur if traffic signal does not

provide for protected turning

movements. Traffic queue may block

nearby intersection(s) upstream of

critical approach(es).


Very long traffic delays, failure,

extreme congestion.


< 50 sec/veh

At or near capacity, flow

quite unstable.

"F" Total breakdown, stop-and-go

operation. Delay > 80.0 sec

Intersection blocked by external

causes. Delay > 50 sec/veh

Forced flow, breakdown.

Sources: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Special Report 209.

El Dorado County Intersection Thresholds of Significance. El Dorado County identifies LOS

E as the acceptable Level of Service on roadways and state highways within the unincorporated

areas of the County in the Community Regions and LOS D in the Rural Centers and Rural

Regions except as specified in the General Plan. Four roadway segments, none of which are part

of this study, allow LOS F conditions after 2008. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual was used

to provide a basis for describing existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of

project traffic impacts. An impact is considered significant if the project causes an intersection to

change from LOS E to LOS F. Worsening of existing facilities already operating at unacceptable

Levels of Service is also considered a significant impact. The County’s General Plan Policy TC-

Xe defines “worsen” as any of the following conditions:

a. a 2% increase in traffic during the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour or daily trips, or

b. the addition of 100 or more daily trips, or

c. the addition of 10 or more trips during the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour.



Existing Levels of Service

Intersection Levels of Service. Figure 2 presents the existing lane configurations and current

peak hour traffic volumes at the Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection. These

volumes are the result on new counts conducted on March 17, 2015.

Table 2 summarizes current Levels of Service at the study intersection during the a.m. and p.m.

peak hours. As shown, the intersection operates at LOS B, which satisfies the El Dorado County

minimum standard (i.e., LOS E).

TABLE 2 EXISTING PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS

Location Control

AM Peak Hour Intersection

PM Peak Hour Intersection

LOS Average

Delay LOS Average

Delay

Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive Signal B 10.8 B 19.5

Queuing Vehicles queue on approaches to signalized intersections. For this analysis current queueing was

estimated as a byproduct of Level of Service analysis. El Dorado County policy is to evaluate

queueing at study intersections where queue spillback is anticipated based on the potential

addition of more than 10 peak hour trips or where the existing left turn lanes are less than 100

feet. The southbound left turn lane on Cameron Park Drive is 200 feet long, the northbound u-

turn lane is 80 feet long and the westbound dual left turn lanes on Palmer Drive are both 150 feet

long. While the Ponte Palmero II project would be unlikely to add any traffic to the northbound

u-turn lane, estimated queues have been identified.

Queue Length Calculation. Table 3 presents the queue estimates for turn lanes at the Cameron

Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection. As shown, the 95th

percentile queues all are

accommodated within existing left turn lanes.

TABLE 3

PROJECTED 95th

PERCENTILE QUEUES

Location

Lane Length (feet)

Existing 95th

Percentile Queue

AM PM

Volume Queue (ft) Volume Queue

Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive

Northbound u-turn lane

Southbound left turn lane

Westbound left turn lanes (2)

80

200

150

18

91

104

30

130

40

53

131

391

66

158

137

Bold indicates turn lane length exceeded

figure 2

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS5037-003 LT 10/21/2015


1

1

Cameron Park Dr / Palmer Dr

(131) 91

(595) 767 181 (122)

400 (973)

18 (53)

38 (1

94)

104

(391

)

PROJECT

SITE

Legend

AM Peak Hour VolumeXX

PM Peak Hour Volume(XX)

Signalized Intersection

Cameron Park Dr



Public Transit

El Dorado Transit (EDT) operates buses throughout El Dorado County. In the vicinity of the

site, Route 40 Cameron Park provides regular service along Palmer Drive on 60 minute

headways.

Non-Motorized Transportation

The available facilities for bicycles and pedestrians in the area of the project were inventoried.

Sidewalks. Sidewalk is present along both sides of Palmer Drive and Ponte Palmero Drive.

Crosswalks are striped at the Ponte Palmero Drive / Palmer Drive and Cameron Park Drive /

Palmer Drive intersections. The latter intersection is equipped with pedestrian indications and

push buttons.

Bicycle Facilities. Few designated bicycle routes currently exist throughout El Dorado County

due to the rural nature of the county, but bicycle lanes have been developed where new

construction has occurred. In the project vicinity, bike lanes already exist along Cameron Park

Drive north of Palmer Drive.



EXISTING PLUS PROJECT IMPACTS

Project Characteristics

The development of this project will attract additional traffic to the project site. The amount of

additional traffic on a particular section of the street network is dependent upon two factors:

Trip Generation, the number of new trips generated by the project, and

Trip Distribution and Assignment, the specific routes that the new traffic takes.

Trip Generation. Trip generation is determined by identifying the type and size of land use

being developed. Recognized sources of trip generation data may then be used to calculate the

total number of trip ends.

The project proposes two types of residential care. The trip generation estimate for the project

was computed using trip generation rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of

Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2013) based on these uses. Table 4 displays the daily,

a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour trip generation rates that are applicable.

These rates have been applied to the projects residence inventory. As shown in Table 5, the

project could generate 249 daily trips with 12 a.m. peak hour trips and 20 p.m. peak hour trips.

Because the clubhouse would only cater to project residents or residents of Ponte Palmero Phase

1, no new trip generation is associated with that use.

TABLE 4

TRIP GENERATION RATES

ITE

Code Description Unit

Trips per Unit

Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

253 Congregate Care Facility dwelling 2.02 59% 41% 0.06 55% 45% 0.17

254 Assisted Living bed 2.66 65% 35% 0.14 44% 56% 0.22

TABLE 5

TRIP GENERATION FORECAST

ITE

Code Description Quantity

Trips

Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

253 Congregate Care Facility 44 du 89 2 1 3 4 4 8

254 Assisted Living 60 beds 160 6 3 9 5 7 12

Total 249 8 4 12 9 11 20



Trip Distribution & Assignment. The distribution of project traffic was developed based on

review of current travel patterns in this area. Table 6 identifies the directional distribution of

project trips based on the pattern of traffic occurring today on Palmer Drive at the Cameron Park

Drive intersection. Resulting Project Only traffic volumes are noted in Figure 3.

TABLE 6

PROJECT NEW TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Route

% of Total Trips

AM PM

North on Cameron Park Drive 31% 45%

South on Cameron Park Drive 69% 55%

Total 100% 100%

figure 3

PROJECT ONLY

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS5037-003 LT 10/21/2015


1

1


(4) 3(0) 0 5 (5)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (5

)

3 (6

)

PROJECT

SITE

Legend




Cameron Park Dr



Existing Plus Project Conditions

The impacts of the project have been identified by superimposing project traffic onto the existing

background conditions. Figure 4 displays the “Existing Plus Project” condition for both a.m. and

p.m. peak hours. Resulting intersection Levels of Service were then calculated and used as the

basis for evaluating potential project impacts.

Intersection Levels of Service. Table 7 compares existing peak hour Levels of Service with and

without the project. As indicated, while the length of average delays at the intersections will

increase slightly, the intersections will continue to operate with a Level of Service (i.e., LOS B)

that is within the minimum County standard (i.e., LOS E or better). Thus the project’s impact is

not significant.

TABLE 7 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT

PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS

Location Control Time Period

Existing Existing Plus Project

LOS

Average

Delay LOS

Average

Delay

Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive Signal AM Peak B 10.8 B 11.4

PM Peak B 19.5 B 19.9

figure 4

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT



1

1


(135) 94

(595) 767 186 (127)

400 (973)

18 (53)

39 (1

99)

107

(397

)

PROJECT

SITE

Legend




Cameron Park Dr



Queue Impacts. As noted in Table 8, the project will increase the volume of peak hour traffic in

turn lanes at the Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection. However, no appreciable

change to existing 95th

percentile queues is forecast, and projected 95th

percentile queues can still

be accommodated in the available turn lanes.

TABLE 8 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 95

th PERCENTILE QUEUES

Location

Lane

Length

(feet)

Time

Period

Existing

Existing Existing Plus Project

Volume

Queue

(feet) Volume Queue





80

200

150

AM

18

91

104

30

130

40

18

94

107

30

41

134

PM

53

131

391

66

158

137

53

135

397

66

164

140


Non-Automotive Transportation Impacts. Development of the project may result in a few

pedestrians or bicyclists traveling to the site, primarily by employees. Pedestrians may walk

to/from the project to adjoining commercial areas. However, as the number of pedestrians and

cyclists attracted specifically to the site is not large, and sidewalks already exist, the project’s

impact on pedestrian and bicycle facilities is not significant.



CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (YEAR 2035)

The analysis of the long term cumulative impact analysis is intended to consider the impact of

this project within the context of conditions occurring under the El Dorado County General Plan

in the Year 2035.

Basis for Analysis - Regional Traffic Growth. The recently updated countywide regional

travel demand forecasting model was used as the basis for developing future volumes forecasts

in the study area. Regional circulation system improvements are also included including two

new interchanges that will be completed to provide additional access to US 50. These are the US

50 / Silva Valley Road interchange that is currently under construction and the US 50 / Empire

Ranch Road – Sophia Parkway interchange in the City of Folsom. With the development of

regional circulation system improvements the forecasting model suggests that traffic volumes in

this area could be expected to increase moderately in the future.

The approach identified under El Dorado County traffic study guidelines was employed to create

turning movement forecasts at study intersections. Adjusted future and existing volumes were

compared and used to create approach growth rates at the intersection, as noted in Table 9. The

growth rates were applied to current a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movements, and the results

were balanced using the techniques contained in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s)

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data

for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design. The NCHRP 255 method applies the

individual growth rates to the intersection turning movement volumes and uses an iterative

process to balance and adjust the resulting forecasts to match total inbound and outbound flows.

TABLE 9

FUTURE GROWTH RATES

Street

Time

Period Direction

Peak Hour Volume

Growth Rate Existing

Year 2010 Year 2035

Model Model Adjusted

A B C A+(C-B) ((A+(C-B))/A

Cameron Park Dr -

South

AM NB 599 661 966 904 1.48

SB 871 974 1,524 1,421 1.63

PM NB 1,148 1,072 1,686 1,762 1.53

SB 986 886 1,193 1,293 1.31

Cameron Park Dr -

North

AM SB 858 879 1,340 1,319 1.54

NB 438 477 663 624 1.42

PM SB 726 670 848 904 1.25

NB 1,167 918 1,419 1,668 1.43

Palmer Drive

AM WB 142 216 342 463 1.89

EB 272 305 441 408 1.50

PM WB 585 386 562 761 1.30

EB 253 322 485 416 1.64



The extent to which the proposed project can reasonably be assumed to be included in the

county-wide traffic volume forecasts was determined through review of the model’s land use

files. The project area is included in land use TAZ 256. Comparison of Year 2010 and Year 2035

land use files for TAZ 238 indicate that by the year 2035 another 26 office and 25 medical

employees can be anticipated with a daily traffic volume increase from the TAZ of 2,800 ADT.

As this growth appreciably exceeds the assumptions for Ponte Palmero II, the project can

reasonably be assumed to be in the regional model’s forecasts.

Because the project is in the traffic model, future year turning movements developed from model

results represent the “Plus Project” condition, while the “No Project” condition is created by

subtracting project trips. Figure 5 presents Year 2035 No Project volumes, and Figure 6

indicates Year 2035 volumes with the project.

Year 2035 Intersection Levels of Service. Table 10 displays the a.m. and p.m. peak hour Levels

of Service for the Year 2035 conditions with and without the project. As indicated, while the

average delay may be slightly greater with the project, the Level of Service is the same.

TABLE 10 YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT

PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE AT INTERSECTIONS

Location Control Time Period

Year 2035 No Project Year 2035 Plus Project

LOS

Average

Delay LOS

Average

Delay

Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive Signal AM Peak B 11.4 B 11.5

PM Peak C 33.6 C 34.6

Queue Impacts. As noted in Table 11, the project will increase the volume of peak hour traffic

in turn lanes at the Cameron Park Drive / Palmer Drive intersection. In the p.m. peak hour the

95th

percentile queue in each lane is expected to exceed the available storage with and without

the project. Improvements to increase the available left turn lane storage have been considered.

The northbound u-turn lane could be made longer by modifying the existing raised median on

Cameron Park Drive. To lengthen the southbound left turn lane it would be necessary to widen

Cameron Park Drive, which in turn would require acquiring right of way and reconstructing the

retaining wall along the west side of the street. Lengthening the left turn lanes on Palmer Drive

could be accomplished within the existing pavement section but would require eliminating the

left turn access into Plaza Golderado Circle. The identified constraints may render these

improvements in feasible.

Because the project does not result in any new location with a 95th

percentile queue exceeding

available storage, the project’s impact is not significant under El Dorado County guidelines and

no mitigation is required.



TABLE 11 YEAR 2035 PLUS PROJECT 95

th PERCENTILE QUEUES

Location

Lane

Length

(feet)

Time

Period

Existing

Year 2035 No Project Year 2035 Plus Project

Volume

(vph)

Queue

(feet)

Volume

(vph)

Queue

(feet)





80

200

150

AM 18

109

212

32

108

78

18

112

215

32

111

80

PM

53

162

545

86

209

328

53

168

551

86

229

333


figure 5

YEAR 2035 NO PROJECT



1

1


(162) 109

(740) 1207 292 (241)

570 (1458)

18 (53)

52 (2

06)

212

(545

)

PROJECT

SITE

Legend




Cameron Park Dr

figure 6

YEAR 2035 WITH PROJECT



1

1


(168) 112

(740) 1207 297 (246)

570 (1458)

18 (53)

53 (2

10)

215

(551

)

PROJECT

SITE

Legend




Cameron Park Dr



FINDINGS / RECOMMENDATIONS / MITIGATIONS

The preceding analysis has identified project impacts that may occur without mitigation. The

text that follows identifies a strategy for mitigating the impacts of the proposed project.

Recommendations are identified for improving facilities that have deficiencies in the roadway

network without the project. If the project causes a significant impact, mitigations are identified

for the facility.

Existing Conditions

The study intersection operates within El Dorado County’s minimum standard (i.e., LOS E or

better). No improvements are currently required.

Mitigations for Existing + Project Conditions

The proposed project will contribute a small amount of traffic to the Cameron Park Drive /

Palmer Drive intersection. However, the intersection will continue to operate at acceptable

Levels of Service (i.e., LOS E or better at El Dorado County intersections). Based on Level of

Service, the project’s impacts are not significant.

2035 Conditions

While the background traffic volume will increase in the future, the Cameron Park Drive /

Palmer Drive intersection will operate at acceptable Levels of Service. Because the minimum

LOS standard is satisfied, no improvements are required based on Level of Service.

On each approach p.m. peak hour 95th

percentile queues in intersection left turn lanes exceed the

available storage.

Mitigations for 2035 + Project Conditions

The study intersection will operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the addition of project

trips. The overall Level of Service will remain at LOS C. Since LOS C satisfies the El Dorado

County minimum standard, the project’s impact is not significant and no specific mitigation is

required.

The project will contribute its fair share to the cost of regional improvements by paying adopted

El Dorado County traffic mitigation fees.



REFERENCES

1. Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010

2. Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000

3. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 2012

4. El Dorado County Department of Transportation, 2012 West Slope Road / Bridge Capital

Improvement Program, http://www.edcgov.us/Government/DOT/CIP.aspx

5. California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014

6. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2013. Trip Generation, 9th Edition. Washington, D.C.

7. Transportation Research Board. 1982. National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.

Washington, D.C.

8. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2014. Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd

Edition.

Washington, D.C.

http://www.edcgov.us/Government/DOT/CIP.aspx



APPENDICES

Transportation Engineers

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

FOR

PONTE PALMERO II


El Dorado County CA

Prepared For:

Pacific Oak Development

2452 Bay View Avenue

Carmel, CA 93923

Prepared By:

KDAnderson & Associates, Inc.

3853 Taylor Road, Suite G

Loomis, California 95650

(916) 660-1555

October 21, 2015

5037-003

File Name :

Date :

START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total Uturn Total

07:00 10 166 0 0 176 13 0 2 0 15 0 74 24 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 291 2

07:15 13 200 0 0 213 16 0 5 0 21 0 92 36 2 130 0 0 0 0 0 364 2

07:30 12 238 0 0 250 21 0 4 0 25 0 72 33 2 107 0 0 0 0 0 382 2

07:45 28 212 0 0 240 26 0 6 0 32 0 106 59 2 167 0 0 0 0 0 439 2

Total 63 816 0 0 879 76 0 17 0 93 0 344 152 8 504 0 0 0 0 0 1476 8

08:00 19 192 0 0 211 21 0 9 0 30 0 96 39 7 142 0 0 0 0 0 383 7

08:15 21 181 0 0 202 28 0 9 0 37 0 108 39 6 153 0 0 0 0 0 392 6

08:30 23 182 0 0 205 29 0 14 0 43 0 90 44 3 137 0 0 0 0 0 385 3

08:45 25 184 0 0 209 45 0 12 1 58 0 98 53 7 158 0 0 0 0 0 425 8

Total 88 739 0 0 827 123 0 44 1 168 0 392 175 23 590 0 0 0 0 0 1585 24

16:00 33 168 0 0 201 100 0 42 0 142 0 201 30 10 241 0 0 0 0 0 584 10

16:15 29 143 0 0 172 92 0 51 0 143 0 191 24 13 228 0 0 0 0 0 543 13

16:30 18 146 0 0 164 92 0 50 0 142 0 225 16 12 253 0 0 0 0 0 559 12

16:45 39 140 0 0 179 84 0 52 0 136 0 244 26 15 285 0 0 0 0 0 600 15

Total 119 597 0 0 716 368 0 195 0 563 0 861 96 50 1007 0 0 0 0 0 2286 50

17:00 30 157 0 0 187 104 0 58 0 162 0 245 22 15 282 0 0 0 0 0 631 15

17:15 36 150 0 0 186 113 0 47 0 160 0 235 37 11 283 0 0 0 0 0 629 11

17:30 26 148 0 0 174 90 0 37 0 127 0 249 37 12 298 0 0 0 0 0 599 12

17:45 26 138 0 0 164 88 0 52 0 140 0 201 22 14 237 0 0 0 0 0 541 14

Total 118 593 0 0 711 395 0 194 0 589 0 930 118 52 1100 0 0 0 0 0 2400 52

Grand Total 388 2745 0 0 3133 962 0 450 1 1413 0 2527 541 133 3201 0 0 0 0 0 7747 134

Apprch % 12.4% 87.6% 0.0% 0.0% 68.1% 0.0% 31.8% 0.1% 0.0% 78.9% 16.9% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total % 5.0% 35.4% 0.0% 0.0% 40.4% 12.4% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 18.2% 0.0% 32.6% 7.0% 1.7% 41.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total

Peak Hour Analysis From 07:45 to 08:45

Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45

07:45 28 212 0 0 240 26 0 6 0 32 0 106 59 2 167 0 0 0 0 0 439

08:00 19 192 0 0 211 21 0 9 0 30 0 96 39 7 142 0 0 0 0 0 383

08:15 21 181 0 0 202 28 0 9 0 37 0 108 39 6 153 0 0 0 0 0 392

08:30 23 182 0 0 205 29 0 14 0 43 0 90 44 3 137 0 0 0 0 0 385

Total Volume 91 767 0 0 858 104 0 38 0 142 0 400 181 18 599 0 0 0 0 0 1599

% App Total 10.6% 89.4% 0.0% 0.0% 73.2% 0.0% 26.8% 0.0% 0.0% 66.8% 30.2% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PHF .813 .904 .000 .000 .894 .897 .000 .679 .000 .826 .000 .926 .767 .643 .897 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .911

START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT UTURNS APP.TOTAL Total

Peak Hour Analysis From 16:45 to 17:45

Peak Hour For Entire Intersection Begins at 16:45

16:45 39 140 0 0 179 84 0 52 0 136 0 244 26 15 285 0 0 0 0 0 600

17:00 30 157 0 0 187 104 0 58 0 162 0 245 22 15 282 0 0 0 0 0 631

17:15 36 150 0 0 186 113 0 47 0 160 0 235 37 11 283 0 0 0 0 0 629

17:30 26 148 0 0 174 90 0 37 0 127 0 249 37 12 298 0 0 0 0 0 599

Total Volume 131 595 0 0 726 391 0 194 0 585 0 973 122 53 1148 0 0 0 0 0 2459

% App Total 18.0% 82.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.8% 0.0% 33.2% 0.0% 0.0% 84.8% 10.6% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

PHF .840 .947 .000 .000 .971 .865 .000 .836 .000 .903 .000 .977 .824 .883 .963 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .974

15-7224-001 Cameron Park Drive-Palmer Drive.ppd

Unshifted Count = All Vehicles

Nothing on Bank 2

3/17/2015

Cameron Park Drive

Southbound

Cameron Park Drive

Northbound

AM PEAK

HOUR

Cameron Park Drive

Southbound

PM PEAK

HOUR Eastbound

Cameron Park Drive

Northbound

Eastbound

Palmer Drive

Westbound

Cameron Park Drive

Southbound Eastbound

Palmer Drive

Westbound

Cameron Park Drive

Northbound

Palmer Drive

Westbound

ALL TRAFFIC DATAEl Dorado County

All Vehicles on Unshifted

Nothing on Bank 1

ALL TRAFFIC DATA(916) 771-8700

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM

1: Cameron Park Dr & Palmer Dr 6/24/2015

6/18/2015 Baseline Synchro 8 Report

Page 1

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

Lane Configurations

Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 104 0 38 18 400 181 91 767 0Number 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 0Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 0 25 20 435 186 99 834 0Adj No. of Lanes 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0Cap, veh/h 212 0 94 32 1730 733 118 2697 0Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.71 0.71 0.07 0.76 0.00Sat Flow, veh/h 3548 0 1583 1774 2424 1027 1774 3632 0

Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 0 25 20 316 305 99 834 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1682 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 1.1 0.8 4.7 4.8 4.1 5.5 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 0.0 1.1 0.8 4.7 4.8 4.1 5.5 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 212 0 94 32 1263 1200 118 2697 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.26 0.62 0.25 0.25 0.84 0.31 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1419 0 633 95 1263 1200 118 2697 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 0.0 33.7 36.6 3.7 3.8 34.6 2.8 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.5 17.8 0.5 0.5 38.3 0.3 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.6 2.4 2.4 3.3 2.8 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.3 0.0 35.2 54.4 4.2 4.3 72.9 3.1 0.0LnGrp LOS D D D A A E A

Approach Vol, veh/h 138 641 933

Approach Delay, s/veh 36.1 5.8 10.5

Approach LOS D A B

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 57.5 5.4 61.2 8.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 28.0 4.0 29.0 30.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 6.8 2.8 7.5 4.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.4 0.0 10.5 0.4

Intersection Summary

HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.8HCM 2010 LOS B

Notes

User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist AM



Page 2

User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.

HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 425 0 200 58 585 595 142 647 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1798 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 0.0 9.7 2.6 16.7 16.8 6.3 6.5 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 0.0 9.7 2.6 16.7 16.8 6.3 6.5 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 607 0 271 74 1029 1046 176 2262 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.74 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.81 0.29 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1314 0 586 131 1029 1046 197 2262 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.6 0.0 31.9 38.4 10.6 10.6 35.7 6.5 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 3.9 16.3 2.3 2.2 19.7 0.3 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 0.0 4.5 1.6 8.8 8.9 4.1 3.2 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.1 0.0 35.8 54.8 12.9 12.8 55.4 6.8 0.0LnGrp LOS C D D B B E A



Approach LOS C B B

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8




Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Exist PM



Page 2


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing + Project AM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 116 0 31 20 319 307 102 834 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1678 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 5.5 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.8 4.8 4.8 4.3 5.5 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 218 0 97 32 1260 1195 118 2691 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.32 0.62 0.25 0.26 0.86 0.31 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1419 0 633 95 1260 1195 118 2691 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 0.0 33.7 36.6 3.8 3.8 34.7 2.8 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 1.9 17.8 0.5 0.5 43.8 0.3 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.6 2.5 2.4 3.5 2.8 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.2 0.0 35.6 54.4 4.3 4.3 78.5 3.1 0.0LnGrp LOS D D D A A E A



Approach LOS D A B

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8




Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing + Project AM



Page 2


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing + Project PM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 432 0 205 58 588 597 147 647 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1795 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 0.0 9.9 2.6 17.1 17.2 6.6 6.6 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 0.0 9.9 2.6 17.1 17.2 6.6 6.6 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 619 0 276 74 1018 1033 181 2250 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.74 0.78 0.58 0.58 0.81 0.29 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1314 0 586 131 1018 1033 197 2250 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.4 0.0 31.7 38.4 10.9 10.9 35.6 6.6 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 3.9 16.3 2.4 2.4 20.7 0.3 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 0.0 4.6 1.6 9.0 9.1 4.3 3.2 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.9 0.0 35.6 54.8 13.3 13.3 56.3 6.9 0.0LnGrp LOS C D D B B E A



Approach LOS C B B

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8




Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing + Project PM



Page 2


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 AM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 230 0 46 20 477 449 118 1312 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1663 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 2.2 0.9 9.9 9.9 5.3 12.6 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 2.2 0.9 9.9 9.9 5.3 12.6 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 349 0 156 32 1184 1112 150 2604 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.30 0.63 0.40 0.40 0.79 0.50 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1314 0 586 88 1184 1112 241 2604 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 33.9 39.5 6.1 6.1 36.4 4.5 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.0 18.7 1.0 1.1 8.8 0.7 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.6 5.1 4.8 3.0 6.3 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.3 0.0 35.0 58.3 7.1 7.2 45.1 5.2 0.0LnGrp LOS D C E A A D A



Approach LOS D A A

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8




Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 AM



Page 2


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 PM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 592 0 202 58 899 937 176 804 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1779 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 19.3 0.0 14.1 3.9 50.9 54.9 11.7 11.9 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.3 0.0 14.1 3.9 50.9 54.9 11.7 11.9 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 693 0 309 75 1043 1048 204 2344 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.65 0.77 0.86 0.89 0.86 0.34 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 887 0 396 207 1043 1048 266 2344 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 0.0 44.5 56.9 20.6 21.4 52.1 8.9 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.6 0.0 2.5 15.3 9.4 11.6 19.5 0.4 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.1 0.0 6.4 2.2 27.4 30.2 6.8 5.9 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.2 0.0 47.0 72.2 29.9 33.0 71.6 9.3 0.0LnGrp LOS D D E C C E A



Approach LOS D C C

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.6HCM 2010 LOS C

Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 PM



Page 2


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 + Project AM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 234 0 47 20 481 451 122 1312 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1660 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 2.2 0.9 10.1 10.1 5.5 12.7 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 2.2 0.9 10.1 10.1 5.5 12.7 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 353 0 158 32 1177 1104 155 2599 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.30 0.63 0.41 0.41 0.79 0.50 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1314 0 586 88 1177 1104 241 2599 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 33.8 39.5 6.2 6.2 36.2 4.5 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.0 18.7 1.1 1.1 9.0 0.7 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.6 5.2 4.9 3.1 6.3 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.3 0.0 34.9 58.3 7.3 7.4 45.2 5.2 0.0LnGrp LOS D C E A A D A



Approach LOS D A A

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8




Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 + Project AM



Page 2


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 + Project PM



Page 1


Lane Configurations


Grp Volume(v), veh/h 599 0 206 58 901 940 183 804 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1583 1774 1770 1777 1774 1770 0Q Serve(g_s), s 19.6 0.0 14.4 3.9 51.9 56.1 12.2 12.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.6 0.0 14.4 3.9 51.9 56.1 12.2 12.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 700 0 312 75 1033 1037 211 2337 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.66 0.77 0.87 0.91 0.87 0.34 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 887 0 396 207 1033 1037 266 2337 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.5 0.0 44.4 56.9 21.2 22.1 51.9 9.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.8 0.0 2.7 15.3 10.2 12.8 20.9 0.4 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.2 0.0 6.5 2.2 28.0 30.8 7.2 5.9 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.3 0.0 47.2 72.2 31.4 34.9 72.8 9.4 0.0LnGrp LOS D D E C C E A



Approach LOS D C C

Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8



HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.6HCM 2010 LOS C

Notes


HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 2035 + Project PM



Page 2


Queues Exist AM



Page 1

Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT

Lane Group Flow (vph) 56 57 41 20 632 99 834v/c Ratio 0.12 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.34 0.66 0.36Control Delay 16.6 15.0 1.8 38.1 11.9 59.3 12.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 16.6 15.0 1.8 38.1 11.9 59.3 12.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 16 0 9 93 47 127Queue Length 95th (ft) 38 40 8 30 138 #130 217Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 672 403 677 109 1861 149 2312Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.34 0.66 0.36


# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Queues Exist PM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 213 211 58 1191 142 647v/c Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.45 0.91 0.74 0.40Control Delay 20.3 20.4 4.4 47.5 35.7 59.8 16.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 20.3 20.4 4.4 47.5 35.7 59.8 16.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 80 3 29 292 71 121Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 137 45 66 #427 #158 167Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 622 622 712 131 1310 196 1616Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.44 0.91 0.72 0.40




Queues Existing + Project AM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 58 58 42 20 637 102 834v/c Ratio 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.18 0.34 0.67 0.36Control Delay 16.6 15.1 1.9 38.1 11.8 59.5 12.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 16.6 15.1 1.9 38.1 11.8 59.5 12.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 16 16 0 9 93 48 127Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 41 9 30 139 #134 217Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 672 403 677 109 1856 153 2312Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.34 0.67 0.36




Queues Existing + Project PM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 216 216 216 58 1196 147 647v/c Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.45 0.91 0.77 0.40Control Delay 20.4 20.4 4.7 47.5 36.2 61.8 16.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 20.4 20.4 4.7 47.5 36.2 61.8 16.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 82 82 5 29 294 74 121Queue Length 95th (ft) 140 140 47 66 #430 #164 167Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 622 622 712 131 1309 196 1616Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.44 0.91 0.75 0.40




Queues 2035 AM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 115 115 57 20 937 118 1312v/c Ratio 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.21 0.56 0.56 0.63Control Delay 19.3 18.8 0.3 42.7 19.2 43.9 17.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 19.3 18.8 0.3 42.7 19.2 43.9 17.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 41 0 10 189 57 243Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 78 2 32 263 108 #402Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 622 498 662 94 1682 240 2071Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.23 0.09 0.21 0.56 0.49 0.63




Queues 2035 PM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 296 296 224 58 1847 176 804v/c Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.40 0.43 1.02 0.76 0.39Control Delay 51.3 51.3 7.5 61.5 56.1 70.6 14.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 51.3 51.3 7.5 61.5 56.1 70.6 14.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 221 221 4 44 ~814 131 172Queue Length 95th (ft) 328 328 66 86 #965 #209 232Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 420 420 559 206 1807 265 2084Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.40 0.28 1.02 0.66 0.39


~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.




Queues 2035 + Project AM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 117 117 58 20 943 122 1312v/c Ratio 0.22 0.23 0.09 0.21 0.56 0.58 0.63Control Delay 19.4 18.8 0.4 42.7 19.1 44.5 17.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 19.4 18.8 0.4 42.7 19.1 44.5 17.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 41 0 10 190 58 243Queue Length 95th (ft) 80 80 2 32 264 111 #402Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 622 498 662 94 1684 240 2071Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.23 0.09 0.21 0.56 0.51 0.63




Queues 2035 + Project PM



Page 1


Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 300 228 58 1852 183 804v/c Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.41 0.43 1.03 0.77 0.39Control Delay 51.7 51.9 7.9 61.5 58.8 71.4 14.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 51.7 51.9 7.9 61.5 58.8 71.4 14.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 223 224 6 44 ~826 136 172Queue Length 95th (ft) 333 333 70 86 #970 #229 232Internal Link Dist (ft) 719 643 487Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 155 80 210Base Capacity (vph) 420 420 559 206 1796 265 2084Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.71 0.41 0.28 1.03 0.69 0.39


~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.




appendix f - el dorado county, californiaedcapps.edcgov.us/planning/projectdocuments/appendix f...

Documents