Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOregonExpImprove_Part2~~ IInII Kimley-Horn III.......I~~ and Associates, Inc. could be mailed or faxed to the County. The initial response after the first community meeting centered around the following issues: 1. Congestion and delay at red lights on the expressway; 2. Need for safer pedestrian, bicycle, wheelchair and vehicle crossings of Oregon Expressway; 3. Speeding of motor vehicles traveling along the expressway; and 4. Safety issues at signalized intersections (vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to pedestrianlbicyclist conflicts) Based on the 250 questionnaires collected after the fITst community meeting, the following two charts summarize areas of community concerns and requested improvement needs: Oregon Expressway Questionnaire Survey Results * Middlefield Controlling Intersection County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 6 February 2009 II1II"1 .... .". Kimley-Horn -.J LJ and Associates, Inc. Intersection Specific Questionnaire Survey Results * Frontage Road Causing Complexity Based on the identified needs and comments collected from the fITst community meeting, the following general improvements were included in the prelinlinary conceptual alternatives for the intersections within the project area: • Upgrading traffic signal equipment -improves driver visibility of traffic signal lights, accessibility of new pedestrian push buttons that conform to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and visibility of pedestrian signal heads (with countdown timers). • Changing side street lane configurations -changing the use of a lane or restriping to add a new lane reduces driver impatience, reduces traffic backup, and results in a more orderly flow for all modes of traffic at the intersections. • Channeling pedestrians to the safest crossing -pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the intersection will not conflict with left turning vehicular traffic. • Changing side street signal phasing sequence -adding protected left turns (left turn arrows) or separating movements by direction results in smoother and safer traffic operations, as well as eliminates conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists/vehicles and left turning traffic. • Restricting some side street traffic movements at unsignalized intersections -improves the flow of traffic on Oregon Expressway and avoids pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicle conflicts. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 7 February 2009 l1li'1""" Kimley-Horn IIIIII.J .. LJ and Associates, Inc. • Implementing signal synchronization -results in less traffic delay, smoother-flowing traffic at a slower, more uniform speed, and reduces noise/air pollution and fuel consumption. • Straightening crosswalks -reduces the encroachment of drivers into crosswalks where the crosswalks are currently angled across the intersection, thus providing a more direct path for pedestrians and reducing their exposure to traffic. • Removing raised islands from crosswalks -currently raised median islands, with median signal poles in place, intrude into most crosswalks. • Installing curb ramps to conform to new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements -improves accessibility at the intersections for pedestrianslbicyclists and wheelchairs. • Adding bicycle slots and bicycle detectors at signalized intersections where possible -makes bicycling safer and more efficient by providing bicycle-specific signal timing. • Closing gaps in sidewalks -improves connectivity and choices for pedestrians. The public comments collected after presentation of the preliminary conceptual plans at the second community meeting and subsequent meetings with project stakeholders centered around the following issues: • Proposed improvements should focus on pedestrian and bicycle features. • Proposed improvements should eliminate potential conflicting movements at signalized intersections. • Proposed improvements on Middlefield Road should minimize impacts on existing landscaping strips and trees. • The preliminary conceptual alternatives at Bryant and Louis need to be modified. • Preliminary conceptual alternatives with median closures at Waverley and Ross were too restrictive. A third community meeting is scheduled on March 4, 2009 to present the proposed alternatives prior to presenting the proposed alternatives to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission for discussion and recommendations. Design and construction are targeted to begin in 2009 and 2010 respectively. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 8 February 2009 ........-J _.". Kimley-Horn ~_LJ and Associates, Inc. 1.2 Project Area The alternative improvements, proposed by the County of Santa Clara, were evaluated on the Oregon Expressway segment between W. Bayshore Road and Bryant Street. The following intersections were evaluated: 1. W. Bayshore Road 2. Indian Drive (unsignalized) 3. Greer Road 4. Louis Road 5. Ross Road (unsignalized) 6. Middlefield Road 7. Cowper Street 8. Waverley Street (unsignalized) 9. Bryant Street Figure 1 illustrates the study area and intersections. Figure 1: Study Area Map County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 9 February 2009 ~-1InII Kimley-Horn IIII..J _ LJ and Associates, Inc. 2.0 DATA COLLECTION Existing and alternative conditions information was collected to enable development of a traffic model and to analyze alternatives. Data collection included the following: • Existing traffic data from the County • Existing traffic volume data from year 2008 traffic counts • Field review of the project area 2.1 Data from the County KHA coordinated with the County for collection of existing traffic data. Data collected from the County included: • Existing traffic signal timing for each signalized intersection • Co llision data • Aerial photos of the project area • Electronic base plans of the intersections in AutoCAD format • Existing S ynchro mode I (traffic operations analysis software) • Preliminary concept plans for alternative improvements 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes The time periods during which traffic volumes were being studied are as follows: • AMPeak • Midday Peak • PM Peak 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM 11:30 AM to 1:30 PM 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM Traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes were collected at the following seven (7) signalized intersections during AM, midday and PM peak periods: • Oregon Expressway / W. Bayshore Road • Oregon Expressway / Louis Road • Oregon Expressway / Greer Street • Oregon Expressway / Middlefield Road • Oregon Expressway / Cowper Street • Oregon Expressway / Bryant Street Traffic, pedestrian and bicycle volumes were collected at the following three (3) unsignalized intersections during AM and PM peak periods: • Oregon Expressway / Indian Drive • Oregon Expressway / Ross Road • Oregon Expressway / Waverley Street County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 10 February 2009 .......-J .. .". Kimley-Horn II1I.....I .. ~ and Associates, Inc. The peak hour vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes for each intersection are summarized in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4, respectively at the end of the section. The peak hour is defmed as the highest four (4) consecutive fifteen-minute periods selected from the data collected during the peak two-hour period. In addition, twenty-four hour, bi-directional mechanical tube traffic count data was collected at one (1) location along Oregon Expressway between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road during a one-week time period. This data is summarized in Table 1. Table 1 : Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts Road Direction ADT Weekday Weekend Oregon Expressway between Cowper Eastbound 20,220 12,340 Street and Middlefield Road Westbound 19,175 11,840 Total 39,400 24,180 2.3 Collision Review The collision history was reviewed to identify any collision patterns at the project intersections for over five (5) years for which data* is available (January 1 st, 2003, to July 19th, 2008). Table 2 summarizes the collisions and includes the total number and the total for each type of collision occurring at each project intersection. Table 2: Collision Summary Collision Type Intersection Total Rear-Hit Head-Veh with Unstated! Collision Broadside Sideswipe End Object on PedfBicycle ** Oth~rs W. Bayshore Rd. 20 12 1 2 1 1 1 2 Indian Drive 15 7 5 3 0 0 0 0 Greer Road 31 17 9 0 0 2 1 2 Louis Road 23 10 9 0 0 0 1 3 Ross Road 9 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 Middlefield Road 37 18 11 3 1 0 0 4 Cowper Street 23 14 6 1 1 0 1 0 Waverley Street 24 5 10 2 3 0 0 4 Bryant Street 18 5 3 2 3 2 1 2 Total 200 92 57 13 9 5 5 19 Percentage 100% 46.0% 28.5% 6.50/0 4.5% 2.5% 2.50/0 9.50/0 Note: Includes intersection related collisions, defined as collisions within 150 feet of the intersection for rear-end collisions and within 50feet from the intersection for all other types of collisions. * January 1,2003 to July 19, 2005: source from Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) July 20,2005 to July 19, 2008: source from City of Palo Alto ** Vehicles with PedestrianslBicyclists collision data only available with SWITRS data and not included as a collision type in the City of Palo Alto data source. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 11 February 2009 ........-J-.,. Kimley-Horn IIIII...J .. ~ and Associates, Inc. In review of the collision data, there were ninety-two (92) rear-end collisions, fifty-seven (57) broadside collisions, thirteen (13) sideswipe collisions, and nine (9) collisions with fixed objects. In addition, five (5) collisions involved vehicles with pedestrians/bicyclists as identified by SWITRS data. Each of these co llision types can generally be attributed to factors such as driver inattention, driver error, or following too closely. Rear-end type collisions are often less severe and are fairly common at signalized intersections, with higher numbers typically occurring on more heavily traveled corridors such as Oregon Expressway. Broadside collisions can be more severe, and they could be attributed to many factors, but are generally due to the existing permissive phasing (where left turn vehicles do not have their own signal phase; or green arrow indication, and must yield to opposing through vehicles and conflicting pedestrianlbicycle movements) on the side streets. The OregonlMiddlefield intersection had the highest number of co llisions (37), with Oregon/Greer c lose behind at 31. Of the three unsignalized intersections, Waverley Street experienced the highest number of collisions (24), exceeding four of the signalized intersections, despite its relatively low turning volumes. Typical improvements or adjustments that may reduce the number of collisions by collision type are as follows: • Right-anglelBroadside: Install protected phases (i.e., left tum arrows), adjust yellow phase, provide all-red clearance phases, or re-time signals. • Head-On: Provide protected left tum phasing, instalVimprove intersection signing, improve or increase visibility of median striping or median island. • Rear-end: Adjust signal timing ( offsets) or improve synchronization of signals to reduce the number of vehicles that arrive at the intersection during the yellow and red intervals, adjust yellow interval time, or change in permitted left condition to protected left condition. • Sideswipe: InstalVimprove pavement marking and signing, remove on-street parking, and! or widen lanes. 2.4 Field Observations KHA conducted field reviews of the project area on April 29 and May 1, 2008 during the AM, afternoon school peak, and PM peak periods to review corridor operations and to gather additional data for the analysis. Field review included observing general traffic flow conditions, each intersection's operation, pedestrian and bicycle operations, and other intersection specific issues. Figure 5 illustrates the existing lane configuration and traffic control at each project intersection. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 12 February 2009 1 ! ~1448(1055) S .:-197 (128) 1.1376 (1127) --+ ~ r ~ 91(89)~! i o -&I ~ ~ - :on 2 ~ +-1522 (1168) ~ r-24(2B) oS 1388 (1234) --+ 1 r ] 8(4)~ 2' ~ :on County of Santa Clara 3 ~i:!: rii ~ fR "-27 (118) ! J ! ~ ;:~;065} 44 (149) -" 1'\ i r ~ 1287 (1168) --+ I a 23 (23) ~ §:i§: ~~;! Oregon Expressway Improvement Project .......,-n KimIay-Hom IIIII..J_ U and Asaociatea, Inc. 0- 4 i'~2 ia ~ "-52(38) "i II I ~1396(940) Q " '" \i .:-81 (58) ~ 25(110) -" 1'\ i r os 1113 (1235) --+ I ~ 50(38) ~ i:!'i: "'-CD ~~;:: 7 5i'i'~ ;-i~ "-13 (22) I J ! ~ ~1879(1095) rIJ ~20(27) ~1195~::::: 111 8 24(57) ~ g~!. ;e~N 5 "i 1_ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ e .......... ., R ~;-~ ---12(11) £; J 1 I ~1684 (1329) r:Il '" ~ r-22 (11) t' 25(68) 1'\ t'r i 1195(1827) --+ I ~ 10(13) ~ !~!: ~ ~ LEGEND I X I Study Area Intersections XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes w ~(_ =--:a: og ~ ~;o "-48 (70) Q -~ ... ~1408(689) ~ J ! ~ .:-186(1n) ;g 120 (144) -" 1'\ i r II) 950 (1107) --+ 1.. __ ~ 48(131)~ !(1. ~ i;~ Oregon l!J __ e.~!-"-22 (35) R &8 GIl") ~1776(1403) 1:i J ! ~ ~B(37) ~ 41(55)-" 1'\ i r ii 1224 (1620) --+ I i 24(35) ~ !~~ ... .,,~ Ore&onE: KEY X "'C Southbound c: "-:::I 0 -+-.D. rIJ J~~ iii ~ r-~ I "'C '\tr c: -'" :::I 0 .D. --+ G/l iii ~ Northbound G/l Q ttl W :onE: Figure 2 Existing Conditions Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Page 13 11 1121 113J I L 4J I L 5J I L "i ~ 28(5) ~ 9(4) ~ 0(3) ~ CI) "i +---+ "'i +---+ +---+ ;~~L ~ §1 1~ ~ ~1 1~ ~ g:1 1: ~ ~1 1; l ~1 I! !i~iji~i~l~i]iQi~i~i ~ ~1 1~ a3 CD 1ft li~i :on on on E Oregon E sway -:on Exmessway :rf(~ .. '" rr;' .. ~,,:~. '" '1:11..... . ........ ,,'., L:!.IO 6. 0 ," _ ~~ '''VI1J. "~L> : ~~ ~ "To ~o "O'~, ~ ", <",-, ",- ~r ,- " County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project II1II'1"" KimIay-Hom IIIII....J .. U and Aaaociatea, Inc. 0- ~~~L ;~~L ~~~L ~ ~l 1~ ~ ~1 1~ ~ il 1~ Si'iWi Ji~i li'U~~i :on E swa Ore on Ore on E: LEGEND I X I Study Area Intersections XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes KEY x~ L NOIIhLes fii' PcdC'.rou,illi ~ sft+-+l!f J i! ~ II rn I SOuthLes I ~ IPcd~1 :onE Figure 3 Existing Conditions Weekday Peak Hour Pedestrian Volumes Page 14 pJ ! +-2(0) ~F t € ~ 0 ~ Oreann EYnre!l~ 2 3 ~ +-1(0) a ! ~l ~ Oregon Emresswav ',,;' ~'. ...... ;".,' ',,-;w ;;" "U.'P.)J, '-. ~;';~4."" ·;"'.·~r4_. "'~.~~ 3 ~ --;q~ . Oqq /'~~f'~~, ~.' ":,~qq' ..... " ,...-' ~.,. ,. - County of Santa Clara e:;;-E 1i..-9(0) J1\ +-2(2) 8(7)--+ ~tr O(4)~ :-E~ ~ 0re20n Exmesswav ,~ .. ::~ -.'.:,,: -~ Oregon Expressway Improvement Project l1li'1-'" KimIey-Horn IIIIIII...J_ U and A88OCIatea, Inc. . 0I11III 4 "i ~ rI!I os ~ 71 I liS ! 5 6 e:~~ 1i..-O(1) E 1i..-1 (0) ! e~ l1i..-a (0) ]1 ~9(1) "i +-13(2) II +-8(1) ~ ~ ~tr rI!I :~~llll 1(7)--+ !E! ~ 2(8)--+ t O(3)~ 1(3)~ ~a.~ ~ 51 Ore2on Exmesswav Ore onE '¥ Ore on"'- 8 9 €E€ 1i..-2(1) I ESS 1i..-4(O) S'i~ I!-+-4(2) J!~ +-7(2) J J!fl+-8(4) .:-3(0) 1('"""5(0) 0(1) ---11 ~ 8(0) -11 7(8)-+1 1 8(10)--+ 'i 7(8) --+ 11 1(O)~ :::,.::.. i; 0(3)~ :::. c i g: ...... o 0 ~ Ii; llrP.crnn Emressw8v Oregon Exmesswav Ore2onE: KEY X "C Southbound c ~ ::l ..-.. ~ ~ fIJ J~~ iii LEGEND ~ I('""" Q) 3:: I x I Study Area Intersections I "C '\tr c ~ ::l 0 --+ XX (YY) AM (PM) Peak Hour Volumes rI!I tl ~ Northbound rI!I m ~ W 0re2on Figure 4 Existing Conditions Weekday Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes Page 15 !J 2 3 ~I,-! ,-~ ,-l ~ d ~'r 1-~ 1( ,fi --* it ~ ~ .a ~ ~ Si :on Exmesswav Ore2on- -.:\~ !!;':'f;. . . !.I.:>.~~/' .... ~~. ~.p " 1.10 ' ."~' ." .. ~' .. 0 ::·\·· .• '. . ",,:\'fte~}~~~ ':~~~o "::~."" '~o / 'ttl ~ .. ' .... ,,~tT ~ ~,~ ... ' .. ,'~ ";J '''~,_ .J' ,/ " .!J~/ -~~~, "', ... ~' ~<'! ",~, " """ 9'" """~t'V''''-, '-" / .. ">. .' ,,'-~', ..... "'C" <£' " ", '. ". ~,;' .~ - . "\_>~;\~~~"" "": """"'" County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ~_.. Kimley-Hom ~_~ and Associates, Inc. ~20oe 4* -----.l ~I,- "i ~ ~'r CII ·s ~ ~ W 8 ~ '---- "i ,-~ ~ fI:I ~; r fI:I ~ § E: -Oregon Expressway * Bike lanes exist on Louis in both directions. ZJ 8 8 1 ~I ~ ~ir ~ ~ 8 ~ ) ~ ~ ,- t' ~ r '"5 ~ rd ~ 8 :on Ore nE LEGEND I x I Study Area Intersections o . Traffic Signal ~ Stop Control 6 ! "'Ct "D ~ ~ ~ J i i xl fj;' ~ 1 fI:I ~ ~ kl '----,-~iir ~ Oregon-- OregonE: KEY '-§ Southbound )t\ 0 ---£ (/) r~ -gJ ~t( ::I il--1i~ Northbound w :onE Figure 5 Existing Conditions Intersection Geometry & Traffic Control Page 16 ~-1InII Kimley-Horn ....... I_LJ and Associates, Inc. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES The potential conceptual improvement alternatives at the nine (9) study intersections were developed to address comnlunity concerns and the project goals of enhancing vehicle, pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and improving intersection and corridor traffic operations. The improvement alternatives included a menu of measures: • upgrading traffic signal equipment including pedestrian countdown timers; • modifying lane geometry on cross streets for short distances; • upgrading signal phasing sequence; • adding/improving pedestrian curb ramps; • adding bicycle slots and detection; • straightening crosswalks; and • other operational and safety improvements. 3.1 Summary of Improvements The following highlights some of the various types of improvements considered and a discussion of the general advantages/disadvantages of each measure. Further discussion on specific proposed improvements at each intersection and evaluation of the improvements are included below and in Sections 4 and 5 of this report. Upgrade traffic signals: All of the intersections have older traffic signal equipment, including non-ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant pedestrian push buttons and older pedestrian signal heads. In addition, the side street traffic signal heads at W. Bayshore Road, Greer Road, Louis Road, Cowper Street, and Bryant Street are currently located on 10-foot poles or les at the comers of the intersection, not on overhead mast arms. The proposed improvements include upgrading the traffic signals with new signal equipment, including new 3-inch diameter ADA compliant pedestrian push buttons and countdown pedestrian signal heads to enhance the pedestrian crossings and safety, while installation of mast arms signal heads on the side street would improve visibility of traffic signals. In addition, the existing 8-inch diameter signal indications would be replaced with more visible 12-inch diameter indications. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 17 February 2009 ~_ ~ Kimley-Horn l1l......I_ [..J and Associates, Inc. Install ADA curb ramps: The proposed improvements include upgrading the curb ramps at all 0 f the intersections in the study area to current AD A standard ramps to enhance pedestrian accessibility and safety. Install sidewalk: The proposed improvements may include installing sidewalk between various intersections to close gaps in existing sidewalks to enhance pedestrian circulation and provide access to signalized intersections from non-signalized intersections. Sidewalk gap closures would direct pedestrians from neighborhoods to the signalized intersections for safer crossing of the expressway. Realign crosswalks at signalized intersections: Currently many of the crosswalks at the signalized intersections have angled crosswalks or crosswalks that change their alignment at the center of the intersections. In addition, currently many crosswalks have median islands that extend into the crosswalks. Current design standards and preference is to have straight crosswalks to provide a direct route for pedestrians without median intrusion into the crosswalks. In addition, vehicles stopped at a red light often encroach into the crosswalk when there is an angled crosswalk, while straight, non-angled crosswalks provide a clearly visible stop line. Modify side street lane configurations: Review of the existing side street (non- expressway) lane configurations was completed to determine if existing lane designation (i.e., number of left, through, or right lanes, etc.) could be modified within the existing roadway width to improve traffic operations and safety. This review included changing the existing lane usage, such as changing a shared through-left lane to an exclusive left tum and a through lane, or re-striping an approach to add lanes. Benefits of adding or modifying a lane would be to allow for modified traffic signal phasing (i.e., protected left turns), as described below, or to improve visibility between turning vehicles and opposing vehicular and bicycle traffic. Exclusive lanes are improved traffic signal operation and to avoid left, tum conflicts and to prevent vehicles squeezing their way to the right of through/left-turning traffic. In addition, bicycle slots will be added where possible for special bicycle detection to provide bicycle-specific signal timing. All of the above modifications will result in more orderly flow for all modes of traffic at the intersections. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 18 February 2009 ........,_.,. Kimley-Horn I11II..I_ r....J and Associates, Inc. Review side street signal phasing: A review and evaluation of side street (non-expressway) signal phasing was completed at the signalized intersections. The goal of the review was to determine if changes in side street phasing could enhance safety and improve intersection and corridor traffic operations. The following summarize various signal phasing options and potential advantages or disadvantages of each: Permissive left turn phasing (5-phase): Permissive phasing is the current operation on the side streets at W. Bayshore Road, Greer Road, Louis Road, Cowper Street, and Bryant Street. Permissive left turn phasing is where left turn vehicles do not have their own signal phase, or left-turn arrow indication, a~d receive a circular green display at the same time as opposing through vehicles and conflicting pedestrian/bicycle movements. With permissive phasing, left turn vehicles must yield to oncoming traffic or pedestrianslbicyclists, waiting until there is sufficient gap in traffic to make the tum safely. With permissive phasing, there is a higher number of conflicting movements, such as left turns conflicting with the opposing through and pedestrians/bicyclists, increasing the opportunity for collisions between opposing movements. Split phasing (6-phase): Split phasing is the signal operation where opposing approaches (example: eastbound vs. westbound) operate on separate signal phase. With split phasing, all movements in one direction, including the left, through, right, and pedestrianslbicyclists moving along the same direction as the through traffic, operate on a single phase. In other words, each direction gets green display of its own. With split phasing, the left tum movements are essentially "protected" movements and they do not need to yield to opposing through and conflicting pedestrian/bicycle traffic. Split phasing eliminates conflicting movements as mentioned above under "5-phase" operation, reducing the opportunity for collisions between opposing movements. Split phasing often increases intersection delay, especially if a separate pedestrian crossing is associated with each approach. To minimize the delay, crosswalks are often installed on one side to reduce the amount of green time necessary to serve the side street. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 19 February 2009 .......-J ....... Kimley-Horn IIIIIII....I Lj and Associates, Inc. Protected left turn phasing (8-phase): Protected left turn phasing is the signal operation where left turn vehicles have their own signal phase, or green arrow indication, and therefore they are not in conflict with oncoming traffic or pedestrians/bicyclists. Protected left tum phasing is the current operation for turning left from; Oregon Expressway onto side streets, but not for turning left from side streets onto Oregon Expressway. Similar to split phasing, an advantage of protected left turn phasing is that it reduces the number of confficting movements; thus, reducing the opportunity for collisions between opposing movements. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing traffic also will travel with the through traffic movement without conflicting with left turning movements and crosswalks could be maintained or installed on both sides. Modification of side street movements at un signalized intersections: The options include restricting access at Indian Drive, Ross Road, and Waverley Street to eliminate conflicting movements and potential collisions. A couple of potential options under consideration include 1) installation of median islands on Oregon Expressway at Indian Road to limit access to right turns in and right turns out of the side street or 2) installation of small "pork chop" islands on the side street to limit access out of the side street to right out only while continuing to provide left tum and right turns onto the side streets from the expressway all the time. Restricting the movements would result in some vehicles needing to use a different route to enter or exit the neighborhoods, such as completing a u-turn or left-tum at an adjacent intersection. Discussion of the affect of restricting access at Indian Drive, Ross Road, and Waverley Street on traffic patterns and diversion of traffic is included in the following section, Section 3.2. Both alternatives eliminate pedestrian and bicyclists crossing the expressway except at Ross Road where Alternative 3 includes a new signal allowing bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Oregon Expressway. Eliminating these crosswalks will reduce the opportunity of vehicle/pedestrian collisions; however, the pedestrians can use the adjacent signalized intersections to cross the street. In addition, based on a report} published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), these types of nlarked crosswalks, where there are no substantial crossing improvements such as traffic calming treatments, traffic signals, or pedestrian signals, are not recommended on multilane roadways (i.e., four or more lanes) with a raised median that have an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 15,000 or greater. 3.2 Intersection Summaries Based on the intersection traffic operations, safety enhancement considerations, current roadway conditions, and public input, various alternative options were developed for the intersections under study. The following sections describe the alternatives for each intersection. A table summarizing the preliminary conceptual alternatives and detailed concept plans illustrating the possible improvements, presented to the public at the community meeting on June 9, 2008, are included in the Appendix. 1 FHWA Publication Number: HRT-04-100, September 2005, Page 51-53 County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 20 February 2009 ......-J-~ Kimley-Horn III....J .. ~ and Associates. Inc. General Improvements Improvements included with all alternatives at the signalized intersections are upgrading the traffic signal equipment to improve driver visibility of traffic signal lights and installing new pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers and push buttons that conform to new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Other improvements that are included in each alternative are straightening crosswalks, removing median island intrusion into crosswalks, and upgrading curb ramps to current ADA standards. w. Bayshore Road W. Bayshore Road is a signalized T-intersection that has one left and one right turn lane exiting and one lane entering the roadway. The primary concern raised from the community at this intersection is the safety of the pedestrian and bicycle crossing due to limited visibility of a small landing area adjacent to the frontage road and the lack of bicycle detection/timing. One conceptual alternative, Alternative 1, was presented to the community on June 9, 2008, addressing the above concerns and seeking community comments and suggestions. Proposed improvements include new pedestrian curb ramps and re-striping of the W. Bayshore Road approach along with some minor roadway widening to add a bicycle slot for better bicycle detection/timing and to improve the turn radius for the right turn movement. Alternative 1 has been enhanced and illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified". Enhancements to Alternative 1 included minor changes to the bicycle slot striping and adding the removal of the median island nose at existing crosswalk. Indian Drive Indian Drive is an unsignalized T -intersection with Oregon Expressway, with one-way stop control (stop on Indian Drive). The intersection currently provides full vehicle access to and from Indian Drive, including left and right turn movements. The intersection is located in between and in close proximately of two signalized intersections. There are currently no pedestrian crosswalks across Oregon Expressway at this intersection. Concerns from the connnunity include difficulty in making left turns out of Indian Drive and difficulty in making left turns into Indian Drive due to heavy eastbound traffic on Oregon Expressway, and drivers accelerating to get onto US-l 0 1. One conceptual alternative, Alternative 1, was presented to the community addressing the above concerns and seeking community comments and suggestions. The goal of the alternative is to remove the left turn conflicts and potential collisions, thus enhancing safety at the intersection. Alternative 1 would install a median island on Oregon Expressway to limit the access to right in and right out only from Indian Drive. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 1 has been enhanced and illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified" and an additional alternative, Alternative 2, was developed. Alternative 1 enhancements included minor changes to the Indian Drive "pork chop" island design and installation of a proposed pedestrian path towards Greer Road rather than a sidewalk. Alternative 2 would install "pork chop" islands on Indian Drive to restrict left turns out but would allow right inlright out and left turns onto Indian Drive from westbound Oregon Expressway. In restricting movements, vehicular traffic would be diverted to Greer Road. Left turn traffic into and out of Indian Drive could make u-turns at Greer Road or use other County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 21 February 2009 ......, .. 1InI Kimley-Horn 1l....I .. Lj and Associates, Inc. neighborhood streets to access Oregon Expressway. Less than ten (10) vehicles during the highest peak hour of the AMIPM peak periods (two hours each for AM and PM) currently make a left tum onto Oregon Expressway from 'Indian Drive and would most likely use other neighborhood streets to get to Oregon Expressway. A maximum of twenty eight (28) vehicles in the highest peak hour of the AMlPM peak periods (two hours each for AM and PM) currently tum left onto Indian Drive from westbound Oregon Expressway, with diverted traffic estimated to be distributed between making u-turns at Greer Road or use other streets to access the neighborhoods. The estimated traffic diversion, including diversion paths and total volumes, was developed for Indian Drive and the adjacent intersections and is illustrated in Figure 6 through Figure 8 at the end of the section. Greer Road Greer Road is 36 feet wide from the face-of-curb to the face-of-curb with 3-footrolled curb and gutter on the east side and 6-foot rolled curb and gutter on the west side. Currently, the road has two lanes of traffic, one in each direction, with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The intersection is controlled by a five-phase signal with permissive left turns on Greer Road, where traffic from both directions on Greer goes simultaneously. Concerns and comments heard from the community include overall safety for pedestrians and bicycles crossing Oregon Expressway due to conflicts with turning traffic, confusion for left turning movements off of Greer Road, not knowing who is turning left and who is going straight, vehicles squeezing to the right of vehicles waiting to go through or turn left, ·left turn confusions, through traffic queues blocking turn traffic, need to enhance bicycle detection, and need to reduce jog at the intersection by improving intersection geometry. It should be noted that nine (9) broadside collisions have occurred during the study period, and could be attributed to such factors as the existing permissive phasing on Greer Road. Two conceptual alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, were presented to the community addressing the above concerns and seeking community comments and suggestions. Both of the alternatives include re-striping (no widening) on Greer Road for a short distance to accommodate two approach lanes and one receiving lane in each direction to reduce left turn confusion, minimizing the jog in the road, organizing traffic so drivers won't squeeze to the right, providing a bicycle slot in the southbound direction for better bicycle timing, and changing the signal to 8-phase (protected left phasing) operation, Altenlative 1, or 6- phase (split phasing) operation, Alternative 2. Both alternatives will remove the left turn conflicts with other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The two alternatives include prohibiting parking for a short distance on Greer Road south of Oregon Expressway affecting only the on street parking along the side yard portion of two comer properties. Minimal parking activity has been observed in this section on several occasions and comer properties front to cul- de-sacs with available parking, therefore little impact to the two comer properties is anticipated. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 2 will no longer be considered, and Alternative 1 has been enhanced and illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified". Alternative 1 enhancements included minor striping changes on both sides of Greer Road, installation of a bulb-out on the northwest comer, and installation of a proposed pedestrian path towards Indian Drive rather than a sidewalk. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 22 February 2009 1I""'1 .. -1n11 Kimley-Horn III.....l LJ and Associates, Inc. Louis Road Louis Road is a 40-foot wide roadway from the face-of-curb to the face-of-curb with rolled curb on each side of the intersection. The road has two lanes of traffic, one in each direction, with bicycle lanes in both directions. Parking is allowed on the west side of the street at all times, while parking is restricted between 7am to 7pm on the east side of the road. The intersection is controlled by a five-phase signal with permissive left turns on Louis Road, where all traffic, including pedestrians/bicyclists, from both directions on Louis Road goes simultaneously. Concerns and comments heard from the community include overall safety for pedestrian and bicyclists crossing Oregon Expressway due to conflicts with turning traffic, confusion for left turning movements off of Louis Road, not knowing who is turning left and who is going straight, vehicles squeezing to the right of vehicles waiting to go through or turn left, through traffic queues blocking tum traffic, not enough room for bicyclists, and tum radius at the comers is too large on the north side of the intersection resulting in high speed right turns. Two conceptual alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, were presented to the community addressing the above concerns and seeking community comments and suggestions. Both of the alternatives include re- striping (no widening) on Louis Road for a short distance to accommodate two approach lanes and one receiving lane in each direction. This will avoid left tum confusion, organizing traffic to limit blocking of traffic, tightening the radius of the comers on the north side of the intersection to reduce speeds and prevent traffic from driving over the curb, and changing the signal to 8- phase (protected left phasing) operation, Alternative 1, or 6-phase (split phasing) operation, Alternative 2 to 6-phase (split phasing) or 8-phase (protected left phasing) to remove the left turn conflicts with other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Both the alternatives presented included prohibiting parking for a short distance on Louis Road on both the north and south sides of Oregon Expressway. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 2 will no longer be considered, and Alternative 1 has been enhanced to the nlaintain existing bicycle lane and is illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified". Ross Road Ross Road is an unsignalized intersection with Oregon Expressway, and has 2-way stop control (stops on Ross Road). The intersection currently provides full vehicle access to and from the neighborhoods, including left, through, and right movements, and one pedestrian crosswalk across Oregon Expressway. Concerns and comments from the community included difficulty for pedestrians to cross the street, limiting Ross Road access to reduce cut-through traffic, and eliminating movements to reduce conflicts at the intersection. Two conceptual alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, were presented to the community addressing the above concerns and seeking community comments and suggestions. The goal of both alternatives is to reduce conflicts and potential collisions, thus enhancing safety for all modes of traffic. Alternative 1 would install a median island on Oregon Expressway to limit the access to right in and right out only from Ross Road. Alternative 2 would install "pork chop" islands on Ross Road to allow right inlright out all day and left turns onto Ross Road from Oregon Expressway in the off-peak hours. Both alternatives will remove the crosswalk and install sidewalk on the south side of Oregon Expressway to Middlefield Road in order to provide pedestrian access to the signalized intersection. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 1 will no longer be considered, and Alternative 2 has been revised by allowing lefts turns from Oregon Expressway onto Ross County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 23 February 2009 1IIII""l""" Kimley-Horn II1I....I .. LJ and Associates, Inc. Road at all hours and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified". In addition, Alternative 3, was developed to demonstrate potential future implementation of a bicycle/pedestrian signal consistent with the City of Palo Alto Ross Road bicycle boulevard concept. Alternative 3 would include "pork chop" islands on Ross Road to restrict left turns and through vehicular movements from Ross Road, and install a traffic signal to provide full bicycle and pedestrian access. Included in Alternative 3 would be the installation of bicycle slots with signal detection for bicycles to cross Oregon Expressway and installation of a pedestrian crossing on the west side of the intersection. In restricting movements, some vehicular traffic would be diverted to adjacent intersections for access to and from Oregon Expressway. Left tum traffic out of Ross Road and through traffic crossing Oregon Expressway could use Middlefield Road, Louis Road, or other streets to access Oregon Expressway. Less than ten (10) vehicles during the highest peak hour of the AMJPM peak periods (two hours each for AM and PM) currently nlake a left tum onto or cross Oregon Expressway from both southbound and northbound Ross Road and would most likely use other neighborhood streets to get to or cross Oregon Expressway. The estimated traffic diversion, including diversion paths and total volumes, was developed for Ross Road and the adjacent intersections and is illustrated in Figure 9 at the end of the section. Middlefield Road Middlefield Road is a 41-foot wide roadway from the face-of-curb to the face-of-curb north of Oregon Expressway and a 46-foot wide roadway south of Oregon Expressway. The road has four lanes of traffic, two in each direction, with no right turn or left turn pockets at the intersection. The intersection is controlled by a split phase signal with northbound and southbound direction operating independently. Concerns and comments heard from the community include congestion at the intersection causes back-ups on Middlefield Road resulting in cut-through traffic· into neighborhood streets, and safety improvements' are needed for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Oregon Expressway. With the heaviest cross street traffic, this is the controlling intersection for the entire signal system on Oregon Expressway. On June 9, 2008, three conceptual alternatives, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, were presented to the community to seek input and suggestions. All three alternatives include adding a left tum lane on Middlefield Road in both directions and changing the signal to 8-phase (protected left phasing) operation to reduce intersection delay, reduce intersection queuing, separate turning movements from through movements, and allow for more orderly flow of multimodal traffic in all directions. Alternative 1 would add northbound and southbound left tum pockets by widening the roadway by three (3) feet on the east side and five (5) feet on the northwest side of the intersection within existing right-of-way. With the Alternative 1, four (4) trees would be impacted by the southeast side widening, five (5) trees would be impacted by the northeast side widening, and four (4) trees would be impacted by the northwest side widening. Alternative 2 would add a southbound left tum pocket and modify the northbound approach to exclusive left, through, and right lanes by widening the roadway by three (3) feet on the southeast side of the intersection and five (5) feet on the northwest side of the intersection within existing right-of-way. With the Alternative 2, four (4) trees would be impacted by the southeast widening and four (4) trees would be impacted by the northwest widening. Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 1, but with narrower northbound and southbound lanes to limit roadway County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 24 February 2009 .......-J .. ~ Kimley-Horn I11II....I .. ~ and Associates, Inc. widening to five (5) feet on the northwest side only. With the Alternative 3, four (4) trees would be impacted by the northwest widening. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 1, which had the greatest impact on trees, will no longer be considered and Alternative 2 has been enhanced to provide dual curb ramps at each corner and modified lane widths to provide additional pedestrian buffer on the northwest side of the intersection, and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified". With" Alternative 2 Modified", four (4) trees would be impacted by the southeast widening and four (4) trees would be impacted by the northwest widening. In addition, a fourth alternative has been developed. Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 2, but would not widen the roadway on either side of Middlefield Road. As a result of no widening, no trees would be impacted by Alternative 4. This alternative will maintain the existing landscaping strip as is by providing narrower lanes and offsets for traffic traveling through the intersection. For all alternatives, any impacts to the trees will be mitigated per the City of Palo Alto policies. Each of the remaining alternatives being considered, Alternatives 2 Modified, 3, and 4, would result in a significant Level of Service (LOS) improvement. Cowper Street Cowper Street is a 36-foot wide roadway from the face-of-curb to the face-of-curb, although wider at the intersection of Oregon Expressway due to the frontage roads, Oregon A venue and Anton Court, on both sides of the expressway. Currently, the road has two lanes of traffic, one in each direction, with parking allowed on both sides of the street. The intersection is controlled by a 5-phase signal with permissive left turns on Cowper Street, where traffic on both directions of Cowper Street gets a green signal indication simultaneously. Minimal concerns were raised by the community regarding the existing intersection operation although requests were made to improve the pedestrian and bicycle crossings. One conceptual alternative, Alternative 1, was presented at to the community to seek community comments and suggestions. The alternative includes re-striping (no widening) on Cowper Street for a short distance to accommodate two approach lanes and one receiving lane in each direction and change the signal to 8-phase (protected left phasing) operation to remove the left turn conflicts with other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The alternative includes prohibiting parking for a short distance on Cowper Street on the east side, south of Oregon Expressway, affecting off street parking for one property. Based community input, Alternative 1 has been enhanced as is and is illustrated as "Alternative 1 Modified". Enhancements to Alternative 1 included minor changes to the frontage road "stop" line striping. Waverley Street Waverley Street is an unsignalized intersection with Oregon Expressway, with a 2-way stop control (stops on Waverley Street). The intersection currently provides full vehicle access to and from the neighborhoods, including left, through, and right movements, and two pedestrian crosswalks across Oregon Expressway. Many residents from the community noted difficulty in crossing Oregon Expressway at this intersection either in a vehicle or as a pedestrian or bicyclist. Most residents do not want a traffic signal at this location to improve the crossing. It should be noted that ten (10) broadside collisions, which are typically more severe, have occurred at the intersection during the study period. Two conceptual alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, were County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 25 February 2009 ........-J .. .". Kimley-Horn I11III......] .. LJ and Associates, Inc. presented at the community addressing the above concerns and seeking community comments and suggestions. The goal of both alternatives is to reduce conflicts and potential collisions, thus enhancing safety for all modes of traffic. Alternative 1 would install a median island on Oregon Expressway to limit the access to right in and right out only from Waverley Street. Alternative 2 would install "pork chop" islands on Waverley Street to allow right inlright out and left turns onto Waverley Street from Oregon Expressway in the off-peak hours. Both alternatives will remove the crosswalks and install sidewalk to connect with existing sidewalk on Anton Court in order to provide pedestrian access to the signalized intersection. In restricting movements, some vehicular traffic would be diverted to adjacent intersections for access to and from Oregon Expressway. Left tum traffic into and out of Waverley Street and through traffic crossing Oregon Expressway could use Cowper Street, Bryant Street, or other streets to access Oregon Expressway. During the highest peak hour of the AMIPM peak periods (two hours each for AM and PM) less than ten (10) vehicles currently make a left turn onto Oregon Expressway or go through from both southbound and northbound Waverley Street. These vehicles would most likely use other neighborhood streets to turn onto or cross Oregon Expressway. The estimated traffic diversion, including diversion paths and total volumes, was developed for Waverley Street and the adjacent intersections and is illustrated in Figure 10 at the end of the section. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 1 will no longer be considered and Alternative 2 has been revised by allowing left turns from Oregon Expressway onto Waverley Street at all times and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified". Bryant Street Bryant Street is 36-37 feet wide from the face-of-curb to the face-of-curb with 6-inch curb on the north side of Oregon Expressway and rolled curb on the south side of the expressway. Currently, the road has two lanes of traffic, one in each direction, with parking allowed on both sides of the street. Bryant Street is designated as a bicycle boulevard. The intersection is controlled by a 5- phase signal with permissive left turns on Bryant Street, where traffic on both directions of Bryant Street gets a green signal indication simultaneously. Concerns heard from the community include overall safety for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Oregon Expressway and confusion for crossing traffic. Two conceptual alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 2, were presented to the community on June 9, 2008, to address concerns and to seek community input and suggestions. Both of the alternatives include re-striping (no widening) on Bryant Street for a short distance to accommodate two approach lanes and one receiving lane in each direction to avoid left turn confusion, providing a bicycle slot in the southbound direction for better bicycle timing, and changing the signal to 6-phase (split phasing) or 8-phase (protected left phasing) to remove the left turn conflicts with other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Both alternatives presented included prohibiting parking for a short distance on Bryant Street south of Oregon Expressway. Based on the feedback received, Alternative 1 will no longer be considered, and Alternative 2 has been revised by maintaining the northbound leg on Bryant Street as is, and is illustrated as "Alternative 2 Modified". County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 26 February 2009 ........-J .. ~ Kimley-Horn -........J .. Lj and Associates, Inc. Summary of Proposed Conceptual Alternatives for Further Consideration As noted in the intersection summaries, multiple alternatives were developed and presented to the community. Based on feedback received, a number of alternatives are no longer being considered and other alternatives were modified to incorporate comments received. The following summarizes the alternatives still being considered for analysis and review at each intersection: • W. Bayshore Road-Alternative 1 Modified • Indian Drive -Alternative 1 Modified and Alternative 2 (new) • Greer Road -Alternative 1 Modified • Louis Road -Alternative 1 Modified • Ross Road -Alternatives 2 Modified and Alternative 3 (new) • Middlefield Road -Alternative 2 Modified, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 (new) • Cowper Street -Alternative 1 Modified • Waverley Street -Alternative 2 Modified • Bryant Street -Alternative 2 Modified County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 27 February 2009 ! Median CI.,.,. Diverted Volume Oregon Expy. Oregon Expressway ~ 1 il' Arrowhead Way <:> :;~ ~ .!iI ...... 1 .~ CantinalWay I f a.. : & Q ~ a.. ~ ~ ~ llQ J a.. ~ r;,; t:I .... r~ , Moreno Avenue I I Amarillo Avenue Outbound Traffic From Indian Drive Median Closure Diverted Volume r-24(28) I' r r-jl"~"fi" Oregon Expressway \.. ! "'" Arrowhead Way IS ~ CardinalW"" I f 1 ~ : & co ~ t:I ; .$ &! ~ ~ a.. ~ j r;,; t:I .... r~ Moreno Avenue " I I A 8 (7) 12(14) I Amarillo Avenue Inbound Traffic From Westbound Oregon Expressway County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ~~n~1om IIIIII.J~U and AIIocIa. m 0- XX(YY) -AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Figure 6 Estimated Traffic Diversion Indian Dr. Alternative 1 Modified Page 28 OrelZon Expresswav • +--1 (0) ~~~l +-12(14) ,r--24 (-28) +--12(-14) ,r-12(i4) Indian Drive Traffic Diversion Totals ~i!~ "-21 (116) +-1535 (1065) t;~IB ,r-38(35) +-1534 (1182) +-1434 (1041) J ! ~ <;6 (7) ,r-209 (142) Oregon Expressway 44 (149)-'" ~ t r 1386 (1234l-+ r 1376 (1127)-+ l~ r 1267 (1168)-+ 'Q&i~ 12(11 ~ ~E: 91 (89)~ ~-2 23(23)~ fIB ~~~~ ot ~ ~~ ~ j Q ~~ ,.. = ~ ~ S! = ~ 'Q N ,.. ~ C,!) = t-4 • Indian Drive Traffic Totals County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ......,-n D*i-llom III.J_U and A8aocIatee. _ 0- XX(YY) -AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Figure 7 Estimated Traffic Diversion and Peak Hour Volumes Indian Drive Alternative 1 Modified Page 29 Diverted Volume !NO~ From Side Street Oregon Expy. I~ -g Arrowhead Way ~ ~ Oregon Expressway ~ .~ C",dInaI Way I e " '" ~ ~ Q ..c:I '" ~ 5 ~ = ~ '" ~ ~ 1:1 ~ " Moreno Avenue I I • Amarillo Avenue Outbound Traffic From Indian Drive +--1 (0) Orellon Expressway • Indian Drive Traffic Diversion Totals ~~ '-27(116) Iii~IB +-1535(1065) +-1522 (1168) +-1448(1055) J ! ~ .r-32 (28) .r-24 (28) .r-197 (128) Oregon Expressway 44(1491""''' ~ t r 1386 (1234J-+ r 1376 (112~-+ ~~ r 1267 (1168 -+ ~~i'~ 6(4 """"lI ~E: 91 (89 -. ~-i 23(23 -. e IB ~~~~ ·C ; ~C ~ j Q t~ '" 1:1 " ~ .! = r~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 1:1 ~ • Indian Drive Traffic Totals County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ......, ...... KnIey-.'Iom ~ U and Aa8ocIatee. -0- XX(YY) -AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Figure 8 Estimated Traffic Diversion and Peak Hour Volumes Indian Drive Alternative 2 ,Page 30 Garland Drive Diverted Volume r ." ." Be ~ ." "'" " ~ Vol,... ~ & ~ ! ~ :g .fG OrEgon Expy. ~ = .! : VNOLeftO<TbnJUgb ~ j ~ , t S~ ~ :a From Side Street S :sa .. iO'R ,... 3(3) ::a N~ J~ Oree;on Expressway ./ I~ c r 2(1) ~ c 0 ,... J Warren Way Marion Avenue r~ Marshall Drive "-II Moreno Avenue ~ • Outbound Traffic From Ross Road v ~ :i: 1 c t e 1 .... ... N-CD ! c ! ..!,.. ! c 0 ... ,... -iO)" -;::::-E~ c_ ~..!,.. ,...VOI '11";-N .... Oree:on Expresswav ! ~ """;'4(--3) ! ~ +-3(2) ! ~ l' t 3(3)-+ , t r 2(1)~ 11 ~eS ~!EE 4(4)~ ~~ ." .... 0 ." .... ,...N 1"""-j 'Q3 ~ .. -= ~ ~ -~ :a -.fG t r~ -." f ~ it c ~ ......... ;::'~~ '1 ~_ N ~_ ! :; ! ~ ! ~ • ~ Ross Road Traffic Diversion Totals ~l!; "-46 (70) -aia ~!9~ e. "-8 (12) si§;e "-52 (38) +-14021886) 0) +-1519 (1027) +-1396 (940) OreKon Expressway J ! ~ .-1M( 7n J .-60(32) J ! ~ .-81 (58) 120t14l'" l' t r 9(20)~ r 2(1») , t r 950( 107 -+ ~ i'li' 1183(12nJ~ ~ 25(111"'" -F:":;::-48(131 ~ :g,... -11 (13 """"lI 1109 (1231 -+ ." g,~e. ~iR~ 1&1 50 (38 """"lI ~~-~ J ~ ~ ~,... :a '" .fG r~ :sa a ~ ::a ~ ~ j Ross Road Traffic Totals County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ......-,_n II*r-IIcrn III..J_U and.,.. m 0- XX(YY) -AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Figure 9 Estimated Traffic Diversion and Peak Hour Volumes Ross Road Alt 2 Modified & Alt 3 Page 31 N. California Avenue Diverted Volume , I !!!.~ '" 0(2) CDN ! ~ OregOD Expy. Nevada Avenue rro Left or Through e ~ ~ ~ t B C") "1:--From Side Street !:! e..~ C") 1 (1) ~ ~ ~U) Oregon Expressway f t ~ lS~ R ./ f r 1 (2) lS B ~ -00 f i~~ t' ~ C") j ;: Marion Avenue l~ ~ ~ > ~ " ~ r~ -~j u 2(5) Colorado Avenue ....... ./ A Outbound Traffic From Waverley Street t ~ t 0(2)-+ ~ "';-~ t C") B ;;-! ! .. B N 19 ! C") ~ ~~1 eS C") +--3 ~.7) ;:-'9~ C")_ Oregon Expressway ! <;1 ( ) J ! ~ +-1 (2) ! ~ ~ t 1 (1)-+ 1111 1 (2)' t lSBB -1 (-3)-+ lSN' J:I ~:!:.~ ~-f-N 00...,.,.,_ ~C") j ~ t' 100 N' ... t ~ t ~ -a ~ "" r~ C") ~_ co;-~ t ! ~ '9 ~~ _ co =C") C") u_ ! ....!.,.. 1 :: • +-2(5) cp Waverley Street Traffic Diversion Totals !i~~ "-22(35) i --- +-1773 (1396) "-12 (11) B,se~ "-13 (22) m~~ ,r8(37) ~ +-1665 (1331) ~~~ +-1679 (1095) J ! ~ <; 1 (1) J ,r22 (11) J 1 ~ ,r20(27) Oregon Expressway 41 (j-" ~ t r 251-" r 1 (2)' ~ t r 1224 (1620 -+ 1~~~ 1196 (1628 -+ Rt: 27(25)-'" 19~~ 24(35 ~ 10(13 ~ 00 -1194(1~-+ 100 --~Je~;; t'~ 24(5 ~ ~!e~N j ;: 100 i ~ ~ "" r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co = U j Waverley Street Traffic Totals XX(YY) -AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Figure 10 Estimated Traffic Diversion and Peak Hour Volumes Waverley Street Alternative 2 Modified ......, .... n~1orn III..J U and AI8ocIatel. .. 0-Page 32 ........-J _.". Kimley-Horn 1IIII.....l_ ~ and Associates, Inc. 4.0 QPERATIONALANALYSIS A traffic operations analysis was completed for the AM and PM peak periods to evaluate the various proposed alternatives. The analysis looked at each intersection individually under the existing and alternative conditions and for the entire corridor to determine the benefits of the inlprovements on corridor-wide operations. Intersection evaluation was completed using TRAFFIX traffic model software, which is a common tool used to evaluate planning level alternatives. For the corridor-wide evaluation, Synchro© signal timing software was used, and is a common tool used to develop arterial signal timing plans. Both the TRAFFIX and Synchro © models analyses are based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The following sections sumnlarize the model development process, the Level of Service methodology, the results of the intersection analysis, and the results of the corridor-wide analysis. 4.1 Model Development Once all the data was collected, existing conditions traffic models were developed in the TRAFFIX and Synchro © software for the AM and PM peak periods. Peak hour turning movement volumes, existing lane information, and existing timing parameters were used for· development of the models. The models were reviewed and calibrated by verifying that the data, such as queue lengths, degree of saturation, average delay, and travel time reasonably matched the observed conditions in the field. 4.2 Intersection Analysis The existing and proposed conditions were inputted into the TRAFFIX model for the AM and PM peak conditions to evaluate the alternatives. 4.2.1 Level of Service Methodology The traffic impact of existing conditions and improvements is based on the concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term that describes congestion at an intersection, on the basis of ratings from A to F. LOS A describes a completely uncongested operating condition where motorists encounter virtually no delay. LOS B and LOS C describe increasing levels of congestion compared to LOS A. LOS D is what one would observe at a typical busy urban intersection during peak periods of traffic. With LOS D, some motorists may need to wait for more than one red signal cycle to get through an intersection. LOS E represents congested conditions, where a majority of motorists may need to wait for more than one red signal cycle to get through an intersection. LOS F describes severe congestion, where long queues develop and motorists encounter long delays. For this analysis, the LOS at signalized intersections is measured using the methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000 Edition. The 2000 HCM methodology County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 33 February 2009 .......-J-~ Kimley-Horn liliii....i_ Lj and Associates, Inc. utilizes average delay per vehicle based upon peak hourly traffic volumes, peak hour factors, number of lanes, etc., in the calculation. The qualitative A through F LOS scale is measured quantitatively using measures of effectiveness. The measure used depends on the type of facility being assessed. Table 3 relates the operational characteristics associated with each LOS category for signalized intersections. Table 3: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Description Avg. control delay Service per vehicle (sec/veh) A Free flow with no delays. Users are virtually unaffected by others in the !5 10 traffic stream B Stable traffic. Traffic flows smoothly with few delays. > 10 20 C Stable flow but the operation of individual users becomes affected by other > 20 35 vehicles. Modest delays. Approaching unstable flow. Operation of individual users becomes D significantly affected by other vehicles. Delays may be more than one > 35 55 cycle during peak hours. E Unstable flow with operating conditions at or near the capacity level. Long > 55 80 delays and vehicle queuing. F Forced or breakdown flow that causes reduced capacity. Stop and go > 80 traffic conditions. Excessive long delays and vehicle queuing. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000, National Research Council, 2000. 4.2.2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Results Summary For the proposed alternatives, the signal tin ling at each intersection was optimized with the modified signal phasing and lane configurations. . Performance measures included the average intersection delay measured in seconds per vehicles and LOS determined according to the methodo logy noted above. These two performance measures were obtained from the existing and proposed conditions models and are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Intersection Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour Intersection Scenario Average Volume to Intersection Capacity Dela sec vic Oregon Expressway Existing 17.5 0.68 at W. Bayshore Alternative 1M 17.5 0.68 Road Oregon Expressway 17.4 at Greer Road 21.8 Oregon Expressway Exis 28.3 0.72 at Louis Road 26.9 0.70 M-Modified County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives LOS B B C C PM Peak Hour Average Intersection Dela sec 19.2 18.8 18.6 21.2 20.8 26.1 Volume to Capacity LOS vic 0.80 B 0.77 B 0.53 B 0.51 C 0.58 C 0.55 C Page 34 February 2009 111"1 .... .". Kimley-Horn III!.J ~ and Associates, Inc. Table 4, continued: Intersection Level of Service Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Scenario LOS E Oregon Expressway 0.85 0.72 D at Middlefield Road 0.85 0.74 D Alternative 4 Similar to Alternative 2M Oregon Expressway Existing 15.4 0.67 B 17.2 0.54 B at Cowper Street Alternative 1M 15.1 0.64 B 18.2 0.61 B Oregon Expressway Existing 20.3 0.73 C 19.4 0.63 B at Bryant Street Alternative 2M 22.3 0.69 C 21.1 0.60 C M-Modified The analysis showed a significant reduction in average intersection delay at Middlefield Road with each proposed alternative. At W. Bayshore Road, the analysis showed the same delay in the AM period but a slight decrease in delay during the PM period. At Louis Road, Alternative 1 Modified showed a reduction in intersection delay in the AM period but an increase in the PM period. Similarly, Alternative 1 Modified showed a slight decrease in delay at Cowper Street in the AM period but an increase in delay in the PM period. At Greer Road and Bryant Street, the analysis showed a slight to moderate increase in intersection delay during the AM and PM periods with the proposed alternative. The increases in delay at these intersections are nlinimal and primarily due to the additional signal phases. However, the additional phasing would provide enhanced vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle safety at the intersection. The safety benefits of improved signal operation outweigh the minimal increase in delay. At Middlefield Road, Alternative 4 has the same lane configuration and signal phasing as Alternative 2 Modified, although with narrower lanes and offsets for through traffic traveling northbound and southbound through the intersection. Since narrower lanes have a lower capacity than wider lanes, the average intersection delay would increase slightly from Alternative 2 Modified, but there would be very minimal change reflected in the TRAFFIX model results. A benefits analysis was conducted for the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road for the AM and PM peak periods for the alternatives in comparison to existing conditions. Fuel and delay savings were estimated based the decrease in average intersection delay, including all approaches. The benefits summary for Alternatives 2 Modified and 3 at Middlefield Road during the AM and PM peak periods (three hours each) is summarized in Table 5. It should be noted that the reduced delay and fuel savings are for the three-hour AM and PM peak periods only (six hours total) of a weekday. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improveclent Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 35 February 2009 .........,_.". Kimley-Horn III..J _ LJ and Associates, Inc. Table 5: Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road Benefits Summary AM Alternative 2M Alternative 3 PM Alternative 2M Alternative 3 Total (AM+PM) Alternative 2M Alternative 3 M-Modified Notes: 27,180 24,255 19,965 23,655 47,145 47,910 Esdm~ted Fnel . Cons"mJl,~l~~;' Savlqgs, (gl'll)'. . 4,305 3,780 3,120 3,720 7,425 7,500 1. Fuel consumption factor based on estimate from Ohio Air Quality Development Authority $436,670 $389,520 $320,650 $379,970 $757,330 $769,500 2. Cost savings include time savings ($15.67lhour per MTC operations benefit-cost method) and fuel consumption savings ($2.50/gallon). 3. Because savings are for weekday peak periods only, there would be additional benefits beyond those calculated since the improvements and signal timing operations would be in effect for hours and days outside of the weekday peak period. 4. Alternative 4 will have similar benefits as Alternative 2 Modified 4.3 Corridor-wide Analysis An analysis was conducted in the Synchro © software to review the expressway performance with the proposed improvements. Two corridor-wide scenarios were developed and reviewed in comparison to the existing conditions to analyze the improvements. Scenario 1 includes all remaining alternatives being considered at W. Bayshore Road (Alternative 1 Modified), Greer Road (Alternative 1 Modified), Louis Road (Alternative 1 Modified), Cowper Street (Alternative 1 Modified), and Bryant Street (Alternative 2 Modified). It also includes Alternative 2 Modified at Middlefield Road. Scenario 2 includes the same improvements as Scenario 1, with the exception of using the Middlefield Alternative 3 lane configurations instead of Middlefield Alternative 2 Modified. A matrix to summarize the improvements under each scenario at each intersection is shown in Table 6. Figure 11 and Figure 12 show which improvements are included at each intersection with each scenario. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 36 February 2009 ~" .. "" Kimley-Horn IIIIIr...J LJ and Associates, Inc. Table 6: Corridor-wide Scenario Summary Corridor-Side Street Signal Phasing wide Intersection Intersection Protected Split Alternative Permitted Scenario Lefts Phasing Phasing (8-phase) (6-phase) W. Bayshore Road -• Greer Road -• Louis Road -• Existing Middlefield Road • - Cowper Street -• Bryant Street -• W. Bayshore Road 1M • Greer Road 1M • Louis Road 1M • Scenario 1 • MiddlefIeld Road 2M Cowper Street 1M • Bryant Street 2M • W. Bayshore Road 1M • Greer Road 1M • Scenario 2 Louis Road 1M • MiddlefIeld Road 3 I • Cowper Street 1M • Bryant Street 2M • M-Modified Notes: 1. Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 use different lane configurations for Middlefield Road For each corridor-wide scenario, the signal timing was optimized, including the signal coordination plans along the corridor. In conclusion, under each scenario, the traffic signal at Middlefield Road controlled the cycle length and timing operation for the corridor. For . the purpose of this analysis, the optimized corridor-wide cycle length of 150 seconds for the AM peak and 130 seconds for PM peak were used. Corridor-wide performance measures for proposed conditions were obtained from the Synchro model for the AM and PM peak periods and compared to existing conditions. The performance measures are summarized in Table 7 and include: • Total Travel Time (hr) for all vehicles to traverse through the corridor in a one-hour period. • Total Delay (hr) for all vehicles traveling along the corridor in a one-hour period. • Total Stops (number) along the corridor at all intersections in a one-hour period. • Average speed (mph) for vehicles traveling along the corridor, in both directions during the peak hour. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 37 February 2009 111"1""" Kimley-Horn I11II.....I .. LJ and Associates, Inc. Table 7: Oregon Expressway Corridor-wide Performance Measures Total % Total 0/0 Total % Average % Time Travel Difference Difference Difference Difference Period Scenario Time From Delay From Stops From Speed From (hour) Existing (hour) Existing (#) Existing (mph) Existing Existing 870 -495 -28,722 -20.6 -AM Scenario 1 744 -14.5% 369 -25.5% 27,891 -2.9% 23.2 12.6% Peak Scenario 2 747 -14.1% 369 -25.5% 28,167 -1.9% 23.2 12.6% Existing 759 -399 -34,341 -20.3 -PM Scenario 1 675 -11.1 % 312 R1.8% 26,748 -22.1% 23.5 15.8% Peak Scenario 2 672 -11.5% 312 -21.8% 26,841 -21.8% 23.6 16.3% Note: Based on the peak three hours dunng each penod. The analysis showed a drop in average travel time and delay during the AM and PM peak periods with each scenario. In reviewing the traffic model results, the most significant reduction in delay and travel time occurred at the intersection of Middlefield Road with the proposed improvements. Since Middlefield Road is the most critical intersection within the project section and controls the signal coordination for the entire corridor, those improvements would have the greatest impact on corridor-wide traffic operations. A project benefit analysis was conducted based on the study data for the AM and PM peak periods for all alternative scenarios compared to existing conditions. Average reduction in travel time and average increase in speeds were calculated for the corridor for all alternative scenarios. Reduction in vehicle stops and delay will in tum result in reduced noise and air pollution from vehicle emissions and increased fue1Jtime savings. The emission reductions were calculated based on the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (ARB) method. The fuel and time savings were calculated based on a method adopted and used by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for traffic operations projects. The benefits summary for all scenarios is summarized below in Table 8. It should be noted that the above emissions reductions, time savings, and fuel savings are for the three-hour AM and PM peak periods only (six hours total) ofa weekday. All alternatives would result in additional enlissions reductions beyond the periods studied. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 38 February 2009 ~" .. 1InII Kimley-Horn -....J ~ and Associates, Inc. Table 8: Oregon Expressway Corridor-wide Benefits Summary : •• , -,';'I~("~ . ( "~I' ~'. ....... ', 'J . .. -. EmJssioD S,VlDgs .. .'!'" ·~:t,l;(;f . '. ':ii: <. " ;:'1 Est..ll'avel Estimated ;X Estimated EstJ~~ted Es~m.ted Estimated, Sa~Dgs.· .Tlme ·Scen.~~.o l'jm~ ( I" Fuel ' <ROe; NQ~ :P~I:.tO .CP Perl~dt: SaV\ngs . Consu'fI:lptloD E[m~ion Em~on Enill$iQD rDlsslon Per . . " Year : 1 Ii' (bra), Savings (gal) R~.,U't#OD . Reduction Re~uc"on' '. Red"~tlon J Ii' I -",.,,~:(lb~t, ,-. .l}bs), '" •. ",.Ob$t.", ... , .. Ob~l. ,,"," ". Scenario 1 18,093 22,275 330 330 60 2,505 $345,030 AM $341,220 Scenario 2 17,760 22,980 330 300 60 2,625 Scenario 1 28,164 38,556 495 525 30 4,425 $543,270 PM Scenario 2 19,665 27,930 375 375 30 3,165 $510,600 Total Scenario 1 46,257 60,831 825 855 90 6,930 $888,300 (AM+PM) Scenario 2 37,425 50,910 705 675 90 5,790 $851,820 Notes: 1. Fuel consumption factors and health costs of motor vehicle emissions based on Cal trans' California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model. Emissions factors obtained from California Air Resources Board, June 2005. 2. Cost savings include travel time savings ($15.67Ihour), fuel consumption savings ($2.50/gallon), and health cost savings associated with emissions reductions for weekday peak periods only. 3. Because savings are for weekday peak periods only, there would be additional benefits beyond those calculated since the improvements and signal timing operations would be in effect for hours and days outside of the weekday peak period. County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives Page 39 February 2009 !J AltemativelM 3 AltemativelM 4 Altema1ive 1 M ! ,-! ~ll := "i ~ll := ~ ~ --../ --../ ~ i( ~ iY CiI) iY ~ os = ~ .s ~ ~ -:on Exmesswav 0re20n Exmesswav 0re20n Exmesswav , ........ ?.:Y'. ~._----~:' ""'.'. ,'''-' /.~ -~-./ . .--'--" 'j__ ,,/ _,..... c"" ~.~ ..... _ ...... _.... ./:::;:-;:~-C ><>, " 't~" . , ,..-< " /"' . ", • ",.' .... _. /'~ '-,-.j " ,. I / . '-,-, ": ,. '. >0<" .... '-. ' '-./ " '-.,' .",,' ~." c f / '~'/ »>~~;,~~~/~~;~~j/~~~t:~~"~~ . "' ... '"" '" .$ /.,<~ , { ." '; >v~<y,/·'~~- " ,.",,, ". . '. '-~ .... , " .. "-..' '-,.r, .......... / ,~, .. ' , ,/ i'~, f ,-.! .'" ="-. .. /., ',,~ ",< ><' > .. ',:/'-,/':~~: >-,/ < .,'" '-.!.' co.,f'··,c .... ~/ ····.:~~··,~;~~~~s~~; .. County of Santa Clara Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ~_ ... Kimley-Hom III......J _ ~ and Associates, Inc. ~2()09 2J Alternative 1 M ~ll ~ E 1'. ,-{IJ --../ ... ./ I iY ~ l!J AItemative 2 M AI~ J ,-~ir i i 6 A1temative 2 M ! ~Ill '---,-"CI :: iil( "i) -= ~ :i Ot-eeon OregonE Oregon OM KEY , M -Modified L.!J "-Southbound fi5' )t~ ---LEGEND ~ r I X I Study Area ~ 8-Phas:Jside street I -gJ '1t( Intersections protect lefts) ~-• 6-phase (side street GIl ~~ GIl Northbound split lefts) ~ o 5-phase (side street permissive lefts) Figure 11 Scenario 1 Corridor-wide Intersection Geometry and Signal Phasing Page 40 !J AltemativelM 3 Alternative 1 M ! ;-! )~I ~ § ~iv ~ilr t ~ ~ ~ -:on~ II Ore2on ,t '. / ,"',', .... /~ " ~4J ' ,.c' "'''''f~ <.. ....... ... ,,/ '''''-".'''\):,> ...... <';1/ ////~'::> ,:~<~.; ,.: ..... , , '~'-' /~. -, County of Santa Clara " 4 Alternative 1 M "i )~I ~ ~ ~ilr 1& os .s ~:". ; \; ;~ ," Oregon Expressway Improvement Project ~ .. .,. KimJey-Hom ~_U and Associates, Inc. (!'J2009 I ~ Alternative 3 )I~I ~ ! "d t .. ;- ~ ---./ ,. "" j ~ 1fY 7 Alternative 1 M J )~I ~ ;- I ---./ 1Y ~ 91 Altemative 2 M J )kl~ ~ir i € Oretmn Ernre.cl.ClWBV <he on :on M -Modified t!J KEY "-Southbound fi5' )t\ ---LEGEND ~ r I X I Study Area ~ 8-phas~side street I -gJ ~t( Intersections protect lefts) ~---I'll • 6-phase (side street z ~, Northbound split lefts) ~ o 5-phase (side street permissive lefts) Figure 12 Scenario 2 Corridor-wide Intersection Geometry and Signal Phasing Page 41 1III"1 .... 1r1I Kimley-Horn II1I....I ~ and Associates, Inc. 5.0 EVALUATION Based on the project goals, existing conditions, collision ~istory, and traffic operations analysis, a list of advantages ("pros") and disadvantages ("cons") were developed for each intersection alternative. Table 9 summarizes the advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) for the various improvement alternatives at each intersection that are still being considered. A table summarizing the "Pros" and "Cons" for alternatives developed but no longer considered is included in the Appendix. "Pros" and "Cons" are also displayed on the concept plans included in the Appendix and as presented in the public meetings. Table 9: Improvement Alternatives Evaluation Intersection Intersection Advantages ("Pros") Alternative Oregon • Improved bicycle detection and timing Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with wheel chair ramps atW. Alternative · Pedestrian countdown signal Bayshore 1M Road · Eliminates potential collision Alternative · Enhances safety for all modes of traffic Oregon 1M Expressway • Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway at Indian Drive Alternative • Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized 2 intersections for safer expressway pedestrianlbicycle crossing • Improves intersection traffic safety • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals • Left turns from both directions of Greer Rd. are served first followed by through movements · Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing through movements Oregon • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and Expressway Alternative pedestrianlbicycle movements at Greer 1M • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions Road • Improved signal displays • Straightened crosswalks • Separate left and through lanes • Intersection jog is reduced • Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway • NewlEnhanced wheel chair ramps M-Modified County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives • • · • • • Disadvantages ("Cons") None No left turn from Oregon Expressway to Indian Dr. No left turn from Indian Dr. to Oregon Expressway Prohibits left turns from Indian Dr. Left tum or through traffic queue may occasionally exceed the short turn- pockets on Greer Rd. and block traffic Parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer Rd. south . of Oregon Expressway Page 42 February 2009 ~" .. 1nI Kimley-Horn IIII....J ~ and Associates, Inc. Table 9, continued: Improvement Alternatives Evaluation Intersection Intersection Advantages ("Pros") Alternative • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals • Left turns from both directions of Louis Rd are served first followed by through movements • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing through movements • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and Oregon pedestrian movements Expressway Alternative • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions at Louis 1M • Improved signal displays Road • Straightened crosswalks • Separate left and through lanes • Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right turning vehicles • Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway • NewlEnhanced wheel chair ramps • Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection • Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway • Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized intersections to cross Alternative • Oregon Expressway safely 2M • Reduces potential collisions and enhances safety but to a lesser extent to Alternative 3 • It does not prevent to convert the intersection into a Oregon Bicycle Boulevard (similar to EmbarcaderolBryant) in the future Expressway • Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway at Ross • Eliminates potential collisions Road • Enhances safety for all modes of traffic • Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians Alternative 3 • Provides a signal with special bicycle detection and timing at bicycle slots for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Oregon Expressway, but no vehicular through or left tum movement out of Ross Rd. (consistent with Bicycle Boulevard concept) • More efficient signal operation • Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Oregon Expressway • Improves intersection level of service by a grade Expressway Alternative • Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. at 2M • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals Middlefield Road • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served first followed by through movements • Dedicated right turn lanes on northbound of Middlefield Rd. M-Modified County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives • • • • • • • • • Disadvantages ("Cons") Parking to be prohibited for 105 feet on both sides of Louis Rd. north and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively Prohibits left turns coming out from Ross Rd. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon Expressway No left tum from Ross Rd. to Oregon Expressway No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon Expressway Parking to be prohibited for about 70' on both sides of Ross Rd. south of Oregon Expressway Requires 3 feet reduction of landscape strip on the southeast and northwest sides. Reduction of landscape strip on 2 sides of the intersection One through lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. Page 43 February 2009 11"'1-_.". Kimley-Horn l1l.....I [..j and Associates, Inc. Table 9, continued: Improvement Alternatives Evaluation Intersection Intersection Advantages ("Pros") Alternative • Most efficient signal operation • Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway • Improves intersection level of service by a grade • Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals Alternative • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are 3 served first followed by through movements • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and opposing through movements • Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modal traffic for Oregon all directions Expressway • Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield Rd. at • Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide Middlefield • Includes no widening Road • Maintains existing landscaping strip as is • Provides efficient signal operation • Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway Alternative • Improves intersection level of service by a grade • Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. 4 • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served first followed by through movements • Continues to eliminate conflicts between left turn traffic and opposing through movements • Dedicated right turn lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals • Left turns from both directions of Cowper St are served first followed by through movements • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing Oregon traffic Expressway Alternative • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and at Cowper 1M pedestrianlbicycle movements Street • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions • Improved signal displays • Straightened crosswalks • Separate left and through lanes • Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway • Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway • Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized Oregon intersections for safer expressway pedestrianlbicycle Expressway Alternative crossing at Waverley 2M • Improves intersection traffic safety Street • 5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the eastbound direction M-Modified County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives • • • • • • • • • Disadvantages ("Cons") Requires 5 feet reduction of landscape strip on the northwest side Narrower lanes Narrower lanes Creates an offset of 5' in both directions on Middlefield Rd. One through lane for northbound on Middlefield Rd. Left turn or through traffic queue may occasionally exceed the short turn- pockets on Cowper St and block traffic Parking to be prohibited for about 60 feet on Cowper St. south of Oregon Expressway Prohibits left turns coming out from Waverley St No through traffic on Waverley St. to cross Oregon expressway Page 44 February 2009 111"1 .... ~ Kimley-Horn IIIII.....J L] and Associates, Inc. Table 9, continued: Improvement Alternatives Evaluation Intersection Intersection Advantages ("Pros',) Alternative • Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals • Vehicular movements from one direction of Bryant St. are served first followed by movements from other directions on Bryant St. • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing left and through movements Oregon • Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and Expressway Alternative pedestrian/bicycle movements at Bryant 2M • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions Street • Improves signal displays • Improves crosswalk alignment • Enhanced bicycle detection and timing on southbound Bryant St. • Northbound approach remains as is • 5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the eastbound direction M-Modified County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Traffic Analysis of Conceptual Alternatives • Disadvantages ("Cons',) One crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk option is not recommended as it will cause long wait time to cross Oregon Expressway) Page 45 February 2009 Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 MODIFIED County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Inlprovement Project r,~~-., L~ __ .J x )( )( --)(---*---x-- Pros Legend Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Remove Existing Curb Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp . Proposed Signal Equipment EXisting Signal Equipment 1. Improved bicycle detection and timing 2. Enhanced pedestrian crossing with wheel chair ramps 3. Pedestrian countdown signals Cons None GRAPHIC SCALE L-~ 'j i ( IN nET ) 1 Inob = 40 It. . i Oregon Expressway and West Bayshore Road ~=~="!2~ Revised 1129/09 [---' ___ J )( )( )( Pros Legend Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Proposed Landscape Median Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping or Marking Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment 1. Eliminates potential collisions 2. Enhances safety for all modes oftraffic Cons 1. No left turn from Oregon Expressway to Indian Dr. 2. No leftturn from Indian Dr. to Oregon Expressway County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros 1. Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway 2. Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized intersections for safer expressway pedestrianlbicycle crossing 3. Improves intersection traffic safety Cons 1. Prohibits left turns from Indian Dr. GRAPHIC SCALE L2 r i i ( III n::ET ) Ilnoh~40 tt. Oregon Expressway and Indian Drive .......-J_" Kimley-Horn IIII....J_U and Associa!::.;, Inc. Revised 1/29/09 r __ ~-:-l L-, __ J )( )( )( --)(---*---x-- Legend Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Remove Existing Curb Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment Alternative 1 MODIFIED County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros 1. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Greer Rd. are served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and pedestrian/bicycle movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions 6. Improved signal displays 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Intersection jog is reduced 10. Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway 11. New/Enhanced wheel chair ramps Cons 1.Left turn or through traffic queue may occasionally exceed the short turn-pockets on Greer Rd. and block traffic 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer Rd. south of Oregon Expressway GRAPHIC SCALE h ~ 'j i -__ I I i (INPUT) 1 !nob = 40 It. Oregon Expressway and Greer Road ~_" Kinley-Hom IIiIo...l_U II1II Aasocla~rx:. Revised 1129/09 County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 MODIFIED Legend - x )( )( Pros Proposed SidewalkJConcrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment 1":"Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Louis Rd. are served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and pedestrian movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions 6. Improved signal displays 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Tighter radius at intersection .comers to reduce speed of right turning vehicles 10. Maintains two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway 11 . New/Enhanced wheel chair ramps 12. Bicycle lanes are carried all the way to the intersection Cons 1. Parking to be prohibited for 105 feet on both sides of Louis Rd. north and south of Oregon Expressway, respectively GRAPHIC SCALE i ( 111 FBET) 1 lIIch = 40 rt. Oregon Expressway and Louis Road ~_n Kinley-Hom ~_u and Aa8oclate::1nc. Revised 1129/09 Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Legend -r:~:":,,:,,.i L~ ..... :';;;;;; )( )( )( .. or- ~ ~, Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment EXisting Signal Equipment Pros 1. Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway . 2. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized intersections to cross Oregon Expressway safely 3. Reduces potential collisions and enhances safety but to a lesser extent to Altemative 3 4. It does not prevent to convert the intersection into a Bicycle Boulevard (similar to Embarcadero/Bryant) in the future Cons 1. Prohibits left turns coming out from Ross Rd. 2. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon Expressway County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 1. Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway 2. Eliminates potential collisions 3. Enhances safety fcir all modes of traffic 4. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians 5. Provides a signal with special bicycle detection and timing at bicycle slots for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross Oregon Expressway, but no vehicular . through or left turn movement out of Ross Rd. (consistent witti Bicycle Boulevard concept) Cons 1. No left turn from Ross Rd. to Oregon Expressway 2. No through traffic on Ross Rd. to cross Oregon Expressway . 3. Parking to be prohibited for about 70' on both sides of Ross Rd. south of Oregon Expressway NOTE: Alternative 1 is no longer being considered. GRAPHIC SCALE t-~..1 'i i i -~. I I I ( UI l'EKT ) 1 IDch = eo ft. Oregon Expressway and Ross Road ......-!_" Kmey-Hom IIII...J_ U and As8ocia"!:.!nc. Revised 1129/09 Pros 1. More efficient signal operation 2. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway 3. Improves intersection level of service by a grade 4. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. 5. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 6. Left turns from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served first followed by through movements 7. Dedicated right turn lanes on northbound of Middlefield Rd. Proposed Conceptual Alternatives ·Alternative 2 Modified - x )( x + or- ./IT'-. Legend Cons NOTE: Alternative 1 is no longer being considered. ~u 1. Requires 3 feet reduction of landscape strip on the southeast and northwest sides. 2. Reduction of landscape strip on 2 sides of the intersection 3. One through lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment Existing Tree GRAPHIC SCALE JO~~ J 'i i c-i (III FKE'I') 1 Inch -60 It Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road ~_n lQriey-Hom 1iIII....I_ U and Asaoclate::,lnc. Revised 2/3/09 Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros 1. Most efficient signal operation 2. Most flexible alternative 3. Best lane-line configuration 4. Provides best overall traffic flow on both Oregon and Middlefield Road 5. Removes existing offset -No offsets 6. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway 7. Improves intersection level of service by a grade 8. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. 9. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 10. Left turns from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served first followed by through movements 11. Continl!es to eliminate conflicts between left turn traffic and opposing through movements & left turn traffic and pedestrians 12. Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modal traffic for all directions 13. Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield Rd. . 14. Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide 15. Reduced congestion will help minimize cut through traffic into adjacent neighborhoods Cons 1.Requires 3' reduction of landscaping strip for a short distance on the northwest side, resulting in loss of 4 trees to be replaced by new planting and trees within newly created buffer 2. Narrower lanes -similar to Middlefield/Colorado and Middlefield/Bryson County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Alternative 3 Modified --r",:",~:' I..,;.; __ .J )( )( )( + or- ~ Legend Q~.! \! \J Proposed Landscape Strip Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping I'lew/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment Existing Tree GRAPHIC SCALE "~..J 'j i • i ( 11/ FRET) 1 !lIOh = 60 rL Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road lII'""l_n Kmey·Hom III....I_U and AasociB~nc:. Revised 717/09 Pros 1. Includes no widening 2. Maintains existing landscaping strip as is 3. Provides efficient signal operation 4. Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on Oregon Expressway 5. Improves intersection level of service by a grade 6. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Rd. 7. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 8. Left turns from both directions of Middlefield Rd. are served first followed by through movements 9. Continues to eliminate conflicts between left turn traffic and opposing through movements 10. Dedicated right turn lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. Cons 1. Narrower lanes 2. Creates an offset of approximately 5' in both directions on Middlefield Rd. 3. One through lane on northbound Middlefield Rd. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 4 Legend r---' t~_~'"_,J )( )( )( Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment Existing Tree GRAPIDC SCALE L-... J 'j i i ( IN FBET ) linDh-eO It. Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road lIII""'l_n Kmey-Hom IIIIII...J_U and .\saocia'e::.!l1C. Revised 2/3/09 Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 1 MODIFIED County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros 1. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Cowper St. are served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing traffic 4. Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and pedestrian/bicycle movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic in all directions 6. Improved signal displays 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway Cons 1.Left turn or through traffic queue may occasionally exceed the short turn-pockets on Cowper St. and block traffic 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 60 feet on Cowper St. south of Oregon Expressway )( )( )( --)(----*----X-- .. or- ~ Legend ~t] II V Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Remove Existing Curb Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment EXisting Signal Equipment GRAPHIC SCALE ~ '," i i ( IN FEet ) 1 Inoh = 40 fL Oregon Expressway and Cowper Street ~_n Kinley-H«n III...J_U and Asaocia~nc. Revised 1129109 County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Pros 1. Allows left turns from Oregon Expressway 2. Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized intersections for safer expressway pedestrian/bicycle crossing 3. Improves intersection traffic safety 4. 5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the eastbound direction Cons 1. Prohibits left turns coming out from Waverley St. 3. No through traffic on Waverley St. to cross Oregon Expressway )( )( )( ..(; or - /fl"-- Legend ~~J \,! ~:.-. \-7 v \/ Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Existing Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chair Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment GRAPHIC SCALE 1.-2 ',' i i ( IN fEL'T ) t Inoh -40 fl Oregon Expressway and Waverley Street .......-J_n Kmey-Hom ~_u and Aasocia~rc. Revised 2/3/09 Legend - )( )( )( --)(----*----)(-- Pros Proposed Sidewalk/Concrete Island Existing Sidewalk Remove Existing Striping Remove Existing Curb EXisting Curb/Edge of Pavement Proposed Striping New/Enhanced Wheel Chai(Ramp Proposed Signal Equipment Existing Signal Equipment 1. Enhanced pedestrian crossings with countdown signals 2. Vehicular movements from one direction of Bryant st. are served first followed by movements from other directions on Bryant St. 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing left and through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traffic and pedestrian/bicycle movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions 6. Improves signal displays 7. 1m proves crosswalk alignment 8. Enhanced bicycle detection and timing on southbound Bryant st. 9. Northbound approach remains as is 10. 5' continuous paved shoulder (bicycle travel way) in the eastbound direction Cons 1. One crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk option is not recommended as it will cause long wait time to cross Oregon Expressway) GRAPHIC SCALE b-~'ii i ( Iii JI'BET l I Inch ~ 40 It. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Proposed Conceptual Alternatives Alternative 2 MODIFIED Oregon Expressway and Bryant Street ......-!_"~Hom IIII....I_U and Aaeocla~nc. Revised 2/3/09 Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. ApPENDICES A. Proposed Conceptual Alternatives " Traffic Analysis B. Community Outreach Comments/County Responses • 1 st Community Meeting Summary Table • 2nd Community Meeting Summary Table c. Preliminary C~nceptual Alternatives (including alternatives that are no longer considered) • Plans and Evaluations • Traffic Analysis County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project t'1II Kimley-Hom ....... __ L.J and Associates, Inc. A -Proposed Conceptual Alternatives County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Kimley-Hom and Associates. Inc. Traffic Analysis County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Alternative 1M AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:40:22 Oregon Expressway Improvement study Alternative 1M AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Oregon Expressway & W. Bayshore Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 51 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.678 17.5 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1--------------11--------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include OVI Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 14 10 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 ------------1 ---------------1 1 ---------------1 1 --"-------------1 1 ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 0 190 0 0 0 0 1376 91 197 1446 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 Initial Bse: 48 0 190 a 0 a a 1376 91 197 1446 0 User Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1. 00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 55 0 216 a 0 a 0 1480 98 205 1506 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 0 216 0 a 0 0 1480 98 205 1506 a PCE Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 0 216 a 0 a 0 1480 98 205 1506 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 1. 00 0.83 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1. 00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1862 0 1666 0 0 0 0 3724 1665 1862 3724 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.06 0.11 0.40 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.78 0.16 0.75 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.08 0.68 0.54 0.00 Delay/Veh: 50.7 0.0 62.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 65.2 8.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.7 0.0 62.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 65.2 8.2 0.0 LOS by Move: D A E A A A A B A E A A HCM2kAvgQ: 52 a 255 a 0 0 a 427 2 247 377 a ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M PM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:39:40 Oregon Expressway Improvement study Alternative 1M PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Oregon Expressway & W. Bayshore Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 66 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.765 18.8 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 -0 10 a 0 0 0 10 10 14 10 o Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 a a a 0 0 0 0 2 a 1 1 0 2 0 a ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol:. 158 0 80 0 0 0 0 1127 89 128 1055 a Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 158 a 80 0 a a 0 1127 89 128 1055 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 184 0 93 0 a a 0 1225 97 135 1111 0 Reduct Vol: a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 184 a 93 0 0 0 0 1225 97 135 1111 a PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 184 0 93 0 0 0 0 1225 97 135 1111 a ------------1 ---------_.-----1 I ---------------I 1 ---------------I 1 ---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1862 a 1666 0 0 0 0 2234 1665 1862 3724 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.06 0.07 0.30 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.77 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 76.8 0.0 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 76.8 0.0 48.2 0.0 0.0 LOS by Move: E A D A A HCM2kAvgQ: 246 a 88 a o 1. 00 0.0 A a **** 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.77 0.0 15.6 1.00 1.00 0.0 15.6 A B a 494 0.85 0.07 1.9 1. 00 1.9 A 18 **** 0.09 0.81 0.76 0.37 84.2 3.9 1. 00 1. 00 84.2 3.9 F A 194 178 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A a ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:41:08 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1M AM Peak Level Of service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.675 21.8 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R . -..,----------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 20 1 .... _----------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 200.0 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.93 0.90 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.73 0.93 0.93 0.76 Lanes: 1 . 00 O. 3 9 0 . 61 1 . 00 O. 42 0 . 58 1. 00 2. 00 1. 00 1. 00 2. 00 1. 00 Final Sat.: 1862 688 1061 1862 749 993 1862 3724 1462 1862 3724 1529 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.02 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.12 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.76 Delay/Veh: 58.8 78.1 0.12 0.76 78.1 1.00 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 58.8 78.1 78.1 LOS by Move: E E E HCM2kAvgQ: 41 228 222 **** 0.09 0.09 0.39 0.74 65.4 83.1 1.00 1.00 65.4 83.1 E F 81 172 0.09 0.74 83.1 1.00 83.1 F 166 **** 0.09 0.57 0.29 0.68 64.3 15.9 1.00 1.00 64.3 15.9 E B 57 451 0.69 0.03 2.1 1.00 2.1 A 3 **** 0.14 0.61 0.14 0.76 57.3 13.3 1.00 1.00 57.3 13.3 E B 36 538 0.70 0.03 1.7 1.00 1.7 A 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M PM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:41:44 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1M PM Peak Level Of-Service Computation Report < 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 60 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.512 21.2 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 3,0 1158 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 0.56 0.44 1.00 0.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 1019 800 1862 1370 507 1862 3724 1551 1862 3724 1558 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.35 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.60 0.73 0.09 0.54 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.58 0.58 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.02 0.18 0.58 0.13 Delay/Veh: 57.8 65.0 65.0 64.9 67.9 67.9 60.1 10.5 0.5 63.2 16.9 5.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.8 65.0 65.0 64.9 67.9 67.9 60.1 10.5 0.5 63.2 16.9 5.6 LOS by Move: E E E E E E E B A E B A HCM2kAvgQ: 26 164 162 72 116 116 182 291 1 34 342 27 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:42:21 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1M AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 63 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (secjveh): Level Of Service: 0.696 26.9 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11-:..-------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------11--------------11-----.;.---------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 PCE Adj: '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 ,69 1569 58 ------------1---------------11---------------11 --------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.71 Lanes: 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 801 954 1862 1241 610 1862 3724 1575 1862 3724 1414 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11--------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.49 0.62 0.14 0.53 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.79 0.79 0.49 0.72 0.72 0.16 0.69 0.06 0.27 0.79 0.07 Delay/Veh: 59.3 68.4 68.4 66.8 67.6 67.6 58.7 11.7 0.0 58.7 22.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 59.3 68.4 68.4 66.8 67.6 67.6 58.7 11.7 LOS by Move: E E E E E E E B HCM2kAvgQ: 65 355 341 107 272 267 30 337 1.00 0.0 A 2 1.00 1.00 58.7 22.4 E C 71 652 5.6 1.00 5.6 A 12 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M PM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:42:59 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1M PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.548 26.1 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1--------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11 -------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 0.65 0.35 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 1212 637 1862 1537 364 1862 3724 1531 1862 3724 1556 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.27 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.17 0.57 0.71 0.09 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.61 0.61 0.22 0.67 0.67 0.37 0.61 0.04 0.35 0.56 Delay/Veh: 57.1 61.8 61.8 63.5 70.6 70.6 56.1 14.5 1.5 65.0 21.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.1 61.8 61.8 63.5 70.6 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 45 219 E 217 E 43 E 192 1. 00 70.6 E 191 1.00 1.00 56.1 14.5 E B 116 363 1. 00 1.5 A 3 1.00 1.00 65.0 21.0 E C 71 333 0.59 0.05 8.0 1.00 8.0 A 11 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2M AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:44:22 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2M AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 104 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.849 46.2 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1 --------------'-1 1 ---------------1 1 ---------------1 1 ---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 261 357 190 79. 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.~1 0.72 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.77 Lanes; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 1829 1442 1676 2352 964 1862 3724 1607 1862 3724 1530 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.10 0.41 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.82 0.56 Delay/Veh: 81.1 66.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 81.1 66.2 LOS by Move: F E HCM2kAvgQ: 355 437 52.3 1. 00 52.3 D 204 **** 0.11 0.17 0.42 0.86 63.3 73.4 1.00 1.00 63.3 73.4 E E 93 350 0.17 0.86 73.4 1.00 73.4 E 349 **** 0.09 0.42 0.73 0.65 81.2 31.2 1.00 1.00 81.2 31.2 F C 179 426 0.60 0.05 7.1 1. 00 7.1 A 12 **** 0.15 0.48 0.65 65.2 1.00 65.2 E 213 0.86 32.6 1.00 32.6 C 796 0.59 0.06 7.8 1.00 7.8 A 13 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KINLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2M PM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:44:56 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2M PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 67 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec!veh): Level Of Service: 0.717 44.1 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include OVl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 Reduct Vol: a a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 Reduced Vol: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 ------------1---------------11---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.91 0.70 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 0.40 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 1829 1409 1676 2689 674 1862 3724 1629 1862 3724 1569 ------------1--------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.06 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.10 0.25 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.76 0.21 Delay/Veh: 69.2 54.9 40.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.2 54.9 40.5 LOS by Move: E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 218 453 76 **** 0.09 0.31 64.7 1. 00 64.7 E 59 0.24 0.70 55.0 1. 00 55.0 E 329 0.24 0.70 55.0 1.00 55.0 E 326 **** 0.15 0.41 0.55 0.76 61.9 36.4 1.00 1.00 61.9 36.4 E D 169 565 0.55 0.15 11.1 1.00 11.1 B 46 **** 0.13 0.76 76.3 1.00 76.3 E 243 0.39 0.64 34.6 1.00 34.6 C 407 0.48 0.10 16.7 1. 00 16.7 B 31 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 3 AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:45:24 Page 3-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) *****'*************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 104 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.849 45.7 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1----------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.80 Lanes: 1.00 1.29 0.71 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 2129 1136 1676 2352 964 1862 3724 1607 1862 3724 1594 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.10 0.41 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.23 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.74 0.74 Delay/Veh: 81.1 58.2 58.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 **** 0.13 0.17 0.38 0.86 61.3 73.4 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.86 73.4 1.00 **** 0.09 0.42 0.73 0.65 81.2 31.2 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 81.1 58.2 58.2 61.3 73.4 73.4 81.2 31.2 LOS by Move: FEE E E E F C HCM2kAvgQ: 355 342 335 90 350 349 179 426 0.60 0.05 7.1 1. 00 7.1 A 12 ****. 0.15 0.48 0.65 0.86 65.2 32.6 1.00 1 .. 00 65.2 32.6 E C 213 796 0.60 0.05 7.0 1. 00 7.0 A 12 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 3 PM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:45:55 Page 3-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 70 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.735 43.2 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Righ ts : Incl ude Incl ude ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------I --'-------------I 1---------------II ---------------II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 -----------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 Lanes: 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.60 0.40 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final sat.: 1676 2772 599 1676 2689 674 1862 3724 1629 1862 3724 1614 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.10 0.25 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 Volume/Cap: 0.73 Delay/Veh: 73.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.3 0.22 0.66 55.3 1. 00 55.3 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 226 290 0.22 0.66 55.3 1.00 55.3 E 286 0.14 0.21 57.3 1.00 57.3 E 51 **** 0.22 0.73 57.8 1.00 57.8 E 342 0.22 0.73 57.8 1.00 57.8 E 339 0.15 0.53 60.6 1. 00 60.6 E 166 **** 0.42 0.73 33.5 1.00 33.5 C 535 0.56 0.15 10.5 1. 00 10.5 B 45 **** 0.13 0.40 0.73 0.62 73.1 32.3 1.00 1.00 73.1 32.3 E C 236 389 0.55 0.08 11.2 1.00 11.2 B 24 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:46:59 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1M AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Oregon Expressway & Cowper Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.636 15.1 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 32 21 28 38 29 27 1195 24 20 1679 13 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 32 21 28 38 29 27 1195 24 20 1679 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 -----------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 1.00 0.56 0.44 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1862 1109 728 1862 1031 787 1862 3724 1505 1862 3692 29 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.07 0.07 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.62 0.62 Delay/Veh: 71.9 77.4 77.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.9 77.4 77.4 LOS by Move: E E E HCM2kAvgQ: 142 110 109 **** 0.09 0.07 0.19 0.65 63.3 80.1 1.00 1.00 63.3 80.1 E F 37 117 0.07 0.65 80.1 1. 00 80.1 F 116 **** 0.09 0.60 0.17 0.58 63.1 11. 0 1.00 1.00 63.1 11.0 E 32 B 301 0.69 0.03 2.1 1.00 2.1 A 3 **** 0.16 0.67 0.07 0.70 53.6 6.9 1.00 1.00 53.6 6.9 D A 19 341 0.67 0.70 6.9 1.00 6.9 A 340 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1M PM Fri Dec i2, 2008 13:47:25 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1M PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Oregon Expressway & Cowper Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.610 18.2 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1 ---------------1 1 ---------------1 1 ----------..;. ----1 1 --------------, -1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 45 16 11 58 32 25 1452 57 27 1095 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 45 16 11 58 32 25 1452 57 27 1095 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 r.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 0.74 0.26 1.00 0.64 0.36 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1862 1388 493 1862 1194 659 1862 3724 1510 1862 3640 73 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.43 0.04 0.02 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.08 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.45 Delay/Veh: 66.5 67.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 66.5 67.5 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 101 90 0.08 0.45 67.5 1.00 67.5 E 89 **** 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.68 59.1 74.0 1.00 1.00 59.1 74.0 E E 18 181 0.11 0.68 74.0 1.00 74.0 E 181 0.16 0.09 53.4 1.00 53.4 D 25 **** 0.63 0.68 10.2 1.00 10.2 B 390 0.72 0.06 1.1 1. 00 1.1 A 4 **** 0.09 0.16 63.1 1. 00 63.1 E 31 0.56 0.57 14.9 1.00 14.9 B 322 0.67 0.47 4.4 1.00 4.4 A 137 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2M AM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:48:04 Page 3-1 ---------------------------------------------~--------,-------------------------- Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2M AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 64 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service:' 0.689 22.3 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 ------" ------1 ---------------1 1 ---------------1 1 --------------1 1 ---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.72 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.71 0.29 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1352 541 1434 1515 369 1591 1862 3641 71 1862 3671 45 ------------1---------------11----------.;.----11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.10 Volume/Cap: 0.80 0.80 Delay/Veh: 86.5 86.5 0.10 0.31 64.0 1.00 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 86.5 86.5 64.0 LOS by Move: F F E HCM2kAvgQ: 216 216 54 **** 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.28 64.2 64.2 1.00 1.00 64.2 64.2 E E 58 58 0.09 0.64 75.0 1.00 75.0 E 133 **** 0.09 0.58 0.26 0.64 64.0 21.6 1.00 1.00 64.0 21.6 E C 52 543 0.58 0.64 21.6 1. 00 21.6 C 541 **** 0.15 0.63 0.03 0.80 54.9 11. 8 1.00 1.00 54.9 11. 8 D B 8 573 0.63· 0.80 11.8 1.00 11.8 B 573 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. *********~********************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2M PM Fri Dec 12, 2008 13:48:44 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2M PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 **********************.********************************************************* Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 64 Critical Vol./Cap.(X}: Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.604 21.1 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0,0 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2.000 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.71 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.64 0.36 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1216 684 1426 1408 482 1494 1862 3634 79 1862 3619 90 ------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.64 0.64 0.09 0.60 0.60 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.57 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.51 0.22 0.70 0.70 0.22 Delay/Veh: 69.6 69.6 64.6 64.8 64.8 68.0 57.9 18.7 18.7 63.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.6 69.6 64.6 LOS by Move: E E E HCM2kAvgQ: 131 131 48 1.00 1.00 64.8 64.8 E E 71 71 1.001.00 1.00 68.0 57.9 18.7 E E B 95 58 657 1.00 18.7 B 654 1.00 63.6 E 43 0.68 12.9 1.00 12.9 B 417 0.68 12.9 1.00 12.9 B 416 **********************************************************~********************* Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. **********************************************************y********************* Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. B -Community Outreach Comments/County Responses County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Kimley-Hom and Associates. Jnc. 1st Community Meeting Summary Table County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Summary of Public Input/County ~esponse Date: June 4, 2008 County Response Public Input Referred to Will be Out of Additional Remarks No. Referred to Considered in City Maintenance Design Scope Bayshore 1 Traffic backs up on Oregon all the way past Greer Congestion on 101 & merging traffic on 101 ramps cause backups spilling over to Oregon Expwy. • This will require reconstruction ofHwy 10 1I0regon ExpwylEmbarcadero Interchange. Not part of this project. 2 The median between frontage rd & expressway is narrow forcing • pedestrians/bikes to jump onto the Frontage Rd 3 Foliage in item 2 creates visibility problem for pedestrians and bike • 4 SW radii is too large • 5 Enhance bike detection -general comment • 6 Bikes have to dismount to push PPB/jump over the medians • Indian 1 Left tum onto Indian conflict with EB drivers accelerating in slow lane to • make it to 101 2 Left out of Indian onto Oregon is difficult • 3 Probibit left turns from Oregon onto Indian in the PM peak or totally • eliminate it 4 Close the central median • 5 Provide Keep Clear legends • 6 No signal • New signal is not warranted Greer I Vehicular Left turns onto Oregonlpedestrians & bikes contlict • 2 Jog on Greer is confusing • 3 Left turns onto Oregon are confusing/difficult • 4 Drivers squeeze to the right of vehicles waiting to tum left adding to the confusion, endangering bikes & jumping the rolled curb • 5 Indicate left tum paths from Greer onto Oregon on road to help reduce left • turning confusion 6 Provide left tum signals • 7 Provide two lanes of traffic on Greer -each direction, a left and a shared • right/tbm 8 Problem in 1 exacerbated in AM due to low sun • 9 Enhance bike detection • 10 Bikes have to dismotmt to push PPBljump over the medians • 11 Need better design for bikes • 12 Intersection complicated due to frontage road, creates safety problems • 13 No curb cuts -general comment • 14 Too long waitto cross Oregon even when traffic is light • 15 The central median is not wide enough • No room/no funding to widen median I County Response I Public Input Referred to WiUbe Out of Additional Remarks No. Referred to Considered in City Maintenance Design Scope Greer (cont'd) 16 Prohibit right tum on red WB Oregon to NB to reduce confusion and • • conflicts at the frontage road 17 Signalize frontage road Signalization will result in substantial impacts to nearby residents, excessive delays, extra signal • hardware. timing problems on Oregon & complex design & operation due to proximity offt-ontage road to Oregon Expwy 18 Visibility issue for WB bikes on frontage rd & WB right turning traffic from • Oregon 19 Add stop sign SB Greer coordinated with signals • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations 20 Install in pavement lighted crosswalk • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations -----........ -~ ..... -~ Louis 1 Tighten mdii on the north side to slow right turns • 2 Difficult turning left from Louis onto Oregon! vehicle conflict • 3 Left turns onto Oregon/pedestrianslbike conflict • 4 There are many cmshes /year • . 5 Provide left turn signals • 6 Louis not wide for traffic, bikes. students -prohibit parking • 7 Provide 21anes in each direction on Louis • 8 Straighten crosswalks • 9 Drivers use bike lanes to the right of cars waiting to make Jeft adding to Vertical cums to be considered to discourage drivers jumping the rolled curbs cbnfusion and safety & endangering bikes ilc jumping the roned curb • • 10 Push buttons are not easily accessible to bicyclists • 11 Bikes have to dismount to push PPB/jump over the medians • ] 2 NB right turns do not yield to pedestrians • 13 Enhance bike detection • I 14 SE comer is tight; cars drive on the sidewulk • • Vertical cllrbs 10 be considered to discourage drivers jumping the Tolled curbs I 15 Sprinkler between his house on the south at Louis and Oregon is broken • 16 Drivers on Oregon making right do not stop at red light/conflicting with • • ! pedestrians I 17 Pedestrians are hidden by bushes • • 18 Hedges SE comer blocking line of sight • • 19 Pedestrians crossing times are short -general comment • 20 Medians are not wide enough -pedestrians get caught in the middle of Timing provided is sufficient for pedestrian to cross the entire width of the expressway. Adding Oregon • pedestrian coWltdown signal heads will clarifY crossing time. 21 EB Drivers merge into right Jane in advance and are in conflict with folks • merging legally 22 Provide 2 seconds of AlJ Red intetval • 23 Provide an all-way pedestrian phase • Ped crossing enhancement is included in all proposed design alternatives 24 Provide pop-up pedestrians signs lVitil inroad lights -g~neral comment • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations County Response Public Input Referred to Will be Out of Additional Remarks No. Referred to Considered in City Maintenance Design Scope -- Ross 1 Close northerly leg of Ross south of frontage road • I 2 Eliminate WB left tum onto Ross • I 3 Difficult to cross Oregon during rush hours • ! 4 Uncontrolled intersection with various conflicts • 5 Do not close intersection • 6 Needs stop light New signal is not warranted 7 Needs sound walls • Not part of the project -no funds available 8 Provide sidewalk on the south side for pedestrianslbikes to get to the signals • Side walk is proposed on the south side on Oregon Expwy between Middlefield and Ross @ adjacent intersections 9 Provide in-pavement lighted crosswalk Pedestrians volumes are minimal-not warranted 10 Provide Keep Clear legends • 11 Do not install signal New signal is not warranted --- Middlefield 1 Enhance bike detection • 2 Congestion causes drivers short cutting thru the neighborhood -Cowper & • Colorado or back ups on Middlefield 3 Provide separate NB right twn lane • 4 Like existing signal system Comment noted 5 Open up the frontage road to bikes at Middlefield • Frontage road is too close to a major intersection and opening it to bikes will create safety/operational issues 6 Conflict between right turning traffic and the pedestrians • 7 Provide pop-up pedestrians signs with inroad lights • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations 8 Add a shoulder or bike lane or sidewalk along the south side of Oregon • Side walk is proposed on the south side on Oregon Expwy between High and Waverley, Cowper and Expressway between Alma and Middlefield. Tasso, and Middlefield and Ross. 9 Why the comer sidewalks were modified so that the ramps now feed directly into the path of cars turning right, either from Middlefield onto Oregon or Oregon onto Middlefield? It is highly dangerous to pedestrians. Previously, • the ramps fed into the cross walks. The problem is especially acute on the Southeast comer. ---c 1 Put flashing lights at Cowper x-walks • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations ! 2 EB drivers make a fast right tum finishing into bicyclist area on the far side • • 3 Signal fine as is comment noted 4 EB drivers cut off to frontage road after CoWper thinking it's a right tum lane • • to Middlefield -needs better marking 5 Speeding on Cowper • Waverl 1 Do not install a signal New signal is not warranted 2 No signal, remove x-walk if needed • 3 Install speed bumps on Waverley & Marion • 4 No signal, right turn onJy/left tum only or close access to vehicles from • New signal is not warranted Waverley onto Oregon -- No. Public Input 5 Several accidents on Waverley (Marion to Colorado) 6 Make it safer for bikes/pedestrians to cross expressway 7 Most driverslpedestrians use the signal at Cowper or Bryant to cross Oregon ,or ~ a left out of Waverley onto Oregon I Push buttons are not easily accessible 2 Takes long time to get out of the driveway along Btyant due to waiting traffic 3 Confusion among motorists &. bikes -position 4 Enhance Bike detection 5 Conflict between heavy right turning traffic and bikes 6 Major x-town bike blvd -improve bike design/safety 7 Close Btyant to traffic &.lor except residents within two blocks 8 Speeding on Btyant 9 Disallow cars from using Btyant for it to be a true bike blvd 10 ED right tuming drivers have a poor visibility due to the hedge at the corner (SWcorner) 11 Poor visibility for pedestrians to red light runners 12 SB limit line is too close to Oregon thru traffic 13 Remove tree at the SW comer 14 Widen sidewalks on the south side 15 Frontage rd is confusing 16 Put flashing lights at crosswalks 17 Provide pop-up pedestrians signs with inroad lights 18 Signal WOTKS fine as is -no cbange 11 Contlict between WB Expressway exiting traffic &. Oregon Ave thru traffic~ lack of yield signs 1 Better timing/coordinate signals along Oregon 2 Lacldng/non-standard wheel chair ramps at seVeral locations 3 The push buttons are not easily accessible 4 The medians intrude into the crosswalks 5 Enhance loop markings 6 Enhance x-walks with colored concrete/asphalt 7 Pedestrians crossing times are inadequate 8 Drivers run red lights 9 Awkward side street l~ft turns at many locations 10 General safety concerns for bikes/pedestrians Referred to City • • • • • County Response Referred to Will be Dutof Maintenance Considered in Scope Additional Remarks Design Waverley (co nt' d) Traffic signal not warranted; bicycles/pedestrians can use nearby signalized intersections comment noted Bryant • i • • • • • • • • • • • • Side walk is proposed on the south side on Oregon Expwy between High and Waverley • • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations comments noted ---~-- Emerson General Comments • • • • • • • Timings are set per industry standards -adding pedestrian countdown signals Will claritY actual crossing time • As part of the project, new red light indicators will be installed to facilitate police for enforcement • • Addressed under various alternates &. project scope County Response I Public Input Referred to Wi1Ibe Out of Additional Remarks No. Referred to Considered in City Maintenance Design Scope General Comments (cont'd) 11 Louis to ECR-no bike detection, crossing times not adequate, bike/vehicles • conflict etc 12 Consider red light running & speeding cameras for enforcement As part of the project, new red light indicators will be installed to facilitate police for enforcement; • • County does not have speeding camera program 13 Enhance median landscaping • 14 Install low glare street lights • 15 Drivers don't stop/yield for pedestrians/red light running • • Referred to City Police for enforcement 16 Increase speed limit on Oregon • 17 Provide school crossing guards • .18 Negligible police enforcement • 19 Maintain landscaping/foliage in the median/planting strip on the south side - need more vegetation; better maintenance; provide/fix broken sprinklers • 20 Make Oregon Ave a Bike Route • I 21 Develop another cross-town bike blvd • 22 Visibility is an issue due to large bushes for pedestrians and right turning • • traffic 23 Provide police enforcement • 24 Fix pot holes on Oregon • • Referred to Caltrans for area easterly of Bayshore 25 Provide wide & continuous sidewalk along Oregon • Not possible due to right of way issues -alternate routes will be identified at missing locations 26 Bikes/pedestrians can't use Oregon to get to ECR from Middlefield without a • Major reconstruction of Alma interchange is required -not part of the project detour I 27 Widen central median -not wide enough • Requires right-of-way and funding; flmding is not available I 28 Merging/visibility issues at Oregon! Alma • Requires major reconstruction -not part of project I I 29 Strengthen fences on the south side besides trees to protect people's • Out of project scope homes/driveways 30 Check ADA accessibility Oregon pedestrianslbike bridge over Hwy 101 Referred to Caltrans l • ! 31 Change name from Oregon Expressway to Page Mill Road • Not part of project scope I 32 Lack of coordination between ECR & Ramos • EI Camino traffic signal is maintained by State I 33 Consider inroad lights at signalized intersections • Not appropriate at signalized intersections per State regulations ! 34 Install warning signs for pedestrians/bikes at signalized locations • I I 35 Too much traffic on Oregon Oregon Expwy is a major arterial & its function is to cany traffic to minimize traffic on I neighborhood roads I I 36 Traffic flows too fast • Oregon Expwy has the lowest posted speed limit of 35mph among all the other County expressways; referred to City Police for enforcement 37 Oregon not delineated properly between Bayshore & overpass over 101 & Referred to Cal1IBns Dist 4 for evaluation surface is bad 38 Don't install additional traffic signal lights New signal is not warranted 39 Establish a Web site for the project Visit www.oregonexpressway.info 40 Check the 1960's referendum -changes to the expwy may be difficult -Palo • Noted Alto historian I County Response . Public Input Referred to Will be Ontof Additional Remarks No. Refetredto Considered in City Maintenance Design Scope - General Comments (eont'd) 41 Move to alternative modes reducing traffic, noise, delay times etc. • Oregon expressway vision is multi modal 42 Exist traffic noise & pollution is already bad -don't increase traffic • No plan to increase speed limit volumes/speed limit 43 Don't install soood wallslbaniers • Ok, sound walls not within project scope 44 Appoint one contact person for ADA issues Send email to <comments@oregonexpressway.info> or fax to (408) 298-3806 Attention: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 45 Provide overpass/underpass fOT pedestrian safety at various locations -Louis, • Ovelpasslunderpass not within project scope; will require additional right of way and funding in the Bryant, Middlefield, ECR etc. range of$6-12M each 46 Road swface at US 10 1 ramps is deteriorated Referred to Caltrans 47 Noise at night due to police/ambulance using sirens Emergency vehicles required by law to use sirens under certain conditions ! 48 Too many trucks on Oregon • Oregon Expwy is a truck route to mid-town . 49 Driver on cell phone made sharp tumlnot paying attention comments noted 50 Check with PAUSD -Oregon may not align with school boundaries changes Checked with PAUSD~ some discussion has been going on but there is no solid plan to re-a1ign boundary 51 Some added signage or warning lights might help to mitigate the number of accidents on eastbound and coming up out from the Alma underpass on • Oregon Expwy i 52 Would it be possible to widen the Alma tunnel and remove the gates to make OregonlAlma interchange modifications has been identified as a separate project I it more fiiendly to both pedestrians and bicyclists? Or perhaps build an • • overpass instead? 53 Bicycle tunnel bypass at PagemiU/I-280 • PagemilllI-280 bicycle crossing operational improvement has been identified as a separate project 54 Oregon Expressway & Alma going toward m Camino and turning left on • Alma is very dangerous 55 NarrowinG the traffic Janes should reduce the aetna" speeds to be close,. to the • WiI1100k into it during design phase; lanes have been narrowed and shoulders were created between posted speed limit. W. Bayshore and Cowper ----- Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 2nd Community Meeting Summary Table County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project List of Comments/County Response February, 2009 The purpose of this spreadsheet is to list each type of comment received and to provide a response where appropriate. Comments that provide input/opinions where there is no response required are also listed to show the wide range of public input received. County Response No. Public Input Addressed in WilIbe Proposed R.eferred to Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Scope Alternatives Detailed Design Bayshore 1 Alt 1 is a good improvement • 2 Widen path, trim shrubs, improve ramps, cut median out of crosswalk • • 3 Improve pedestrian landing onto ~tage rd -do not trim shrubbery; it provides noise The extent of shrubbery trimming will be referred to the City in order to determine the best • • balance between comments #1 and #2 . mitigation -residents will oppose it 4 Make crosswalk landing safer onto Oregon Avenue • S Put a barrier at the pedestrian landing to prevent bicycles riding on to frontage rd • 6 Provide a safe way from the bicycle slot to go across Oregon • 7 Bicycles through pedestrian lane to gain access to bicycle landing area; would not use proposed bicycle slot • 8 Like right tum lane expansion • 9 Provide deterrent for cars corning off 101 going fast to make the light at W Bayshore • 10 Add signs • 11 Improve signage-Oregon ends both directions • Indian I Like closing median • 2 Concerned about median closures • 3 Don't lilc:e closing median because this will eliminate future bicycle lane possibility • Indian does not continue across Oregon Expressway (i.e., there is no Indian Drive on the north 4 Closing the median prevents bicyclelpedestrian crossings • side of Oregon); therefore, motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians do not cross Oregon at 5 Don't cut off the ability to cross Oregon (this relates to fun & partial closure) • Indian. A pedestrian padl that connects from Greer is being considered by another project. 6 Raised median is an added hazard Raised medians are standard roadway features 7 Keep turns off Oregon open • 8 Keep turns onto & off Oregon • 9 Paint "Keep Clear" legends & stop eastbound center line earlier so westbound turning left can see the oncoming traffic • 10 Lefts at Indian have never been unsafe, Greer light is too long to make left turns • II Any Crash history to justifY improvement Collision data and traffic diversion figures are summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 12 Alternative will shift traffic to Greer and other streets Greer I • • I Either alt I or 2 is fine • i 2 Don't make any change Changes are needed based on community feedbacks 3 g phase not as good as split phase • Alternative 2 is no longer being considered due to conununity feedbacks. The proposed 8 • 4 6 phase is safest for bicycles/pedestrian • phase alternative provides the optimal and safest operation. S 6 phase is better - 8 phase will back up cars • 6 8 phase will increase extent for No Parking: both 6&8 phase will require longer green time • Impacts on green time on Oregon will be analyzed and documented in the Traffic Analysis allowing less green time for Oregon Report. Changes are needed to improve operational safety. County Response No. Public Input Addlessed in Will be Proposed Refeuedto Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Detailed Design Scope Alternatives Greer (cont'd) 7 Allow pennittedlpennissive left turns • Pennissive left-tum is the current operation at this intersection where left turns can be made when there is a break in cross traffic. Proposed conceptual alternatives wi)) protect left turns 8 Provide markers within intersection to help left turns out of Greer with or without 6 or 8 phase • etc 9 Prefer two crosswalks/don't like losing crosswalk • 10 What about a bicycle slot in the NB direction • Requires additional right of way 11 Likes the bicycle slot option Alternative 2 is DO longer being considered due to community feedbacks 12 Provide bicycle detection under aU alts It will be provided through a special bicycle push button at both approaches. It will also be provided in pavement where there are bicycle slots. 13 Create right Jane, minimize bicycle/right turning conflict & provide bicycle detection Alternative 2 is no longer being considered due to community feedbacks 14 Make pedestrian push button easily accessible to both bicycles & pedestrian • 15 Extend northeast comer median to slow right turning cars add vertical curbs-improve • northeast comer visibility 16 Southbound vehicles don't know where to stop at stop bar or before frontage rd 17 Prohibit right turn on red when children are present • Not a MUTCD sign 18 Likes the alt 3 bicycle slot option & it is safer than other options 19 Alt 3 is not practical 20 Alt 3 is a great idea Alternative 3 was a "theoretical example for demonstration only" provided in response to 2 I Agree with closure of Oregon St northbound but question need to seal off access to Oregon St comments inquiring about bow closing the frontage road would look like. between Greer and Louis 22 Alt 3 frontage rd traffic big problem -where will traffic go Louis 1 Both alternatives are ok • 2 Prefer alternative 2 Alternative 2 is no longer being considered due to community feedb'acks 3 Don't make any change; loss ofparldng,longer green times allowing less for Oregon, parking shift etc 4 Would like to see County implement alternative 1 this year Construction tentatively to begin in 2010 to allow time for alternative decision making, engineering/design. and environmental clearance. 5 Allow pennitted/permissive left turns • Proposed conceptual alternatives win protect left turns - 6 8 phase is better for Louis - 6 phase not as good • Alternative 2 is no longer being considered due to community feedbacks 7 Important to avoid left turning vehicle/pedestrian & bicycle conflict • Proposed conceptual alternatives wi11 protect left turns from comJicting vehicular/pedestrian traffic 8 Concern about loss of easterly x-walk for preschool kids at Louis & Garland • 9 Need two crosswalks • Proposed conceptual alternative will have 2 crosswalks 10 Concern about dropping bicycle lanes close to intersection; investigate room for bicycle lanes • 11 Provide bicycle detection • It will be provided through a special bicycle push button at all approaches. It will also be provided in pavement where there are bicycle slots. 12 Support any plan good for bicycles • 13 Keep right turning drivers off sidewalk comer • 14 Make comers tight for slow right turns • • 15 Cut short Double Yellow Line (dotted yellow line) before Louis to access the driveway • It is legal to go over dotted yellow line to make left turns in & out off a private driveway on a residential street -~- County Response No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Refurredto Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Scope Alternatives Detailed Design Louis (conttd) 16 Concerned about loss ofparJdng 17 Reduce traffic on Louis is good Potential improvement in traffic flow and reductions in delay will be analyzed and summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. Ross . I Like closing median 2 No change needed; small, raised median is an unneccssaty hazard. If commuter through traffic is a problem, suggest a raised fire-engine-only barrier midway down Ross. Alternative I is no longer being considered due to community feedbacks 3 Prefers Alt 1 because Alt 2 does not address left tum conflict issue -It does not preclude future plans for bicycle blvd etc 4 Alt 2 is inconvenience for our family, but safer • 5 Prefer Alt2 • 6 Do not close Ross to traffic from Oregon • 7 Do not pursue either Alt 1 or Alt 2, they will shift traffic to Middlefield (or Garland) causing Alternative I is no longer being considered due to community feedbacks. Traffic diversion more congestion on Middlefield; pedestrian & bicycles will have long detours & divide the cit) figures are summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 8 Maintain left in & out 9 Do not restrict left turns from Oregon during peak lu:s • 10 Left tum restriction in and out may be ok during certain hours • 11 Install traffic signal at Ross to facilitate left turns out of Ross on to Oregon • 12 Do not install traffic signal on 'Ross • Proposed conceptual alternatives include option without installation of traffic signal 13 Maintain pedestrianJbicycle access to cross Oregon • 14 Keep it open for bicycle blvd with a light • Proposed conceptual alternatives is consistent with the future bicycle boulevard concept 15 Provide pedestrian light • 16 Do not close the median; pursue alt 2 with a signal for a future Ross bicycle Blvd now • Alternative I is no longer being considered due to community feedbacks 17 Prioritize Rolli,; Road Biuycle &urevanl in City engineering projects • Proposed conceptual altemutives is cOllsistent whh tIle future hicyde boulevard concept 18 Synchronize a Ross Road bicycle/pedestrian light with the Middlefield light to improve· signal timing along Oregon Expressway • 19 Both alternatives include crosswalks -not safe to cross street • Proposed conceptual alternative includes removing the exi~ting crosswalks (the "x's" on the I diagram mean removal, please see legend on plans). I 20 Make the crosswalks more prominentlbetter signage • 21 Install pedestrian activated solar powered light (in-pavement lights) • In-pavement pedestrian LED striping may be used at intersections without traffic lights/stop signs; however, they are not being considered for use on expressways due to high traffic volumes. 22 InstaUlarge "NOT A through Street' sign Ross is a through street -the sign is not feasible Middlefield 1 It's a mess -spend money to fix itlkeep traffic moving; Middlefield is a high priority intersection for improvement • Would like to see improvements made -loss of few trees is fair price for the good of 2 community as a whole (move cars; lower exhaust fumes) -affected trees can be replaced or • relocated 3 Make improvements to reduce cut through traffic onto parallel streets • 4 Keep traffic moving larterial routelneeds to absorb traffic • __ 5 ~ignal efii~enC)'is key __ this is the bottle neck • County Response No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Referred to Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Detailed Design Scope Altematives Middlefield (cont'd) 6 Fix lights on Middlefield • 7 Parking on Middlefield calms traffic & the back ups discourage more traffic on Middlefield - don't make any changes to Middlefield Parking on Middlefield at Oregon Expressway wm remain the same 8 Does not like any of the alternatives due to loss oflandscape strip/opposed to itlno data to support it/city general plan policies against widening etc • 9 Intersection operates excellent; don't fix it 10 More lanes on Middlefield win attract more traffic Potential improvement in traffic flow and reductions in delay will be analyzed and summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 11 Provide minimal changes so as to not attract more traffic • 12 Oppose Middlefield due to loss of trees, toss oflandscape buffer. pedestriansJbicycles next to • i---~~~hicular traffic, more traffic & speed on Middlefield, etc. 13 Alt 1 is the least desirable 14 Only consider changes per Alt 1 if big improvement could be shown -reduction in delay, Alternative 1 is no longer being considered due to community feedbacks iqueuing etc. 15 Prefers Alt 2 with lesser foliage loss or mitigations • 16 Worst intersection -improvements are needed -no need for NB right tum lane • J 7 Prefer exclusive right tum lane because one through vehicle blocks right turns • 18 Alt 3 may be ok subject to studies/data plus concerns about more cars on the street & pedestrian walking next to the traffic etc • 19 Prefer Alt 3 • 20 Saving all trees but 4 for better flow of traffic helps everybody every day • 21 Do a variation of Alt 3 keeping as many trees as possible • 22 Okay with 9-foot lanes of Alt 3 but without removing trees • 23 Change is ok, but concerned with loss of trees • 24 Why take 5 trees out to acconunodate commuters an bour a day • 25 Replace removed trees per City of Palo Alto guidelines • Appropriate City and County policies wm be followed if tree removal/replacement is involved. 26 Preserve landscaping strip and trees • 27 Why keep 2' of landscaping buffer, tress wilt be gone & 2' not enough for tree growth • 28 Concerned about Joss of landscape strip -keep at least I' to 2' landscape strip buffer • 29 Not sure about a right turn lane on northbound Middlefield due to loss oflandscaping buffer • 30 Prefer wider Janes • 31 Prefer less widening & narrow lanes so cars would expect bicyclers in the travel lanes • 32 Consider changing southbound cum lane to right turn lane only • 33 Consider one lane in each direction & left tum lane in the middle on Middlefield • Two through lanes are existing configuration. . Reduction to one through lane on both directions will significantly increase delay Neither alternative is acceptable -change left lane to exclusive left and right lane to 34 through/right, Removal of treesllandscaping is a major concern -affects quality of life. • removes buffer, bad idea, makes pedestrian usage of sidewalk dangerous etc 35 Alt 4 proposes to restripe 5 lanes south of Oregon as in Alt 2. extend 2 through lanes • southbound up to California and maintain 6 phase 36 Need an alternative to make improvements without widening -make improvements within the • footprint of the road 37 Extend no parking zones to allow more cars to go thrOllgh the lights; extend green time for • Middlefield . County Response i No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Referred to Bvaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Scope Alternatives Detailed Design Middlefield (cont'd) Consider traffic patterns at Jordan school driveway west of Garland relative to improvements 38 at this location • 39 Biggest improvement will be to improve flow at this location, but by timing signals during non peak • 40 Prohibit right turn on red during school commute hours • 41 Provide bicycle lanes on Middlefield • A significant amount of additional right-of-way would be required to add bicycle lanes 42 Consider two ramps, one for each x-walk -ramp in the middle specially acute at the SE comer • 43 Not enough room for bicycles -pedestrian & bicycles share sidewalk on southwest side, widen southwest corner • 44 Consider shade and bench at southeast corner, wide medians. wider stop bars • There is insufficient right-of-way for a bench and a wide median. Stop bar width will meet engineering standards. 45 Increase amount of time pedestrian has to cross Oregon Expressway • 46 Consider audible signals for hearing impaired • 47 mstal1 speed cameras on Oregon @ Middlefield • • Traffic speed limits on Oregon Expressway are enforced by City Police not by speed cameras 48 Don't reduce landscape strip to put bicycle lanes, unless sound walls can be installed • Installing sound walls is not part of the project scope aud is not an eligible use of the grant funds. New proposed alternatives have been developed without reduction of landscaping. 49 Map doesn't show N-S & E-W directions • Noted SO Clearly show limit of work • 5 I Imp~vements at Middlefield will improve traffic flow, but doubt if it win help at another Potential improvement in traffic flow and reductions in delay will be analyzed and summarized locations in the Traffic Analysis Report. 52 Absent changes at ECR but changes at Middlefield? • EI Camino Real at Oregon-Page min intersection belongs to the State Cowper 1 Alt 1 is an excellent idea, please do it • 2 Against Alt 1-it will draw more traffic • Traffic diversion figures are summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 3 Add traffic calming to slow traffic at Cowper/Oregon intersection; do not facilitate "flow- through" shortcutting traffic (I.e., CowperlColorado and CowperlMarion shortcuts) • 4 Allow permitted/permissive left turns • Permissive left-tum is the current operation at this intersection where left turns can be made when there is a break in cross traffic. Proposed conceptual alternative Will protect left turns 5 8 phase will make it less safe -removing light will make it safer • Removing traffic signal at Cowper is not in consideration due to current traffic conditions. Maintain status-quo because 8 pbase will require greater extent for No Parking; 6&8 phase Potential improvement in traffic flow and reductions in delay Will be analyzed and summarized 6 will require longer green time allowing less for Oregon/attract more traffic to cut through the neighborhood etc, loss of parking, no room on street etc in the Traffic Analysis Report. 7 Supports same as Alt 3 at Greer • Alt 3 at Greer was a "theoretical example for demonstration only". Closing off the fi'ontage road is not being pursued for any intersection due to traffic circulation needs. 8 Folks block: the frontage rd • • Referred to City for police enforcement. Will consider striping, etc., to discourage blocking frontage road in detailed design. 9 Considf:r No Right Tmn on Red • 10 Existing green light for cross traffic is too short for bicycling • 11 Can't comment -don't understand proposed changes -no key to the bold/dotted/crossed lines • Waverley 1 Either alt is ok • 2 Like closing median • The option to close the median was developed for consideration but no longer being considered due to community feedbacks. County Response I No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Referred to Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Scope Alternatives Detailed Design Waverley ( cont'd) 3 Do not close the median • 4 Alt 2 is better than Alt I -less impact on the neighborhood • 5 Opposed to both alts -they will increase traffic on other streets and create N/S divide Traffic diversion figures are summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 6 Why make any changes at Waverley -Any crash history to support changes! Collision data is summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 7 Only right turns should be allowed off Waverley • 8 Allow left turns during peak hours • 9 Left tum restriction in and out may be ok during peak hours • 10 ''No left Tum" prohibition • II Keep Waverley open to turns from Oregon • 12 Keep Waverley open to turns onto & off Oregon Left tums out of Waverley is not recommended without signal control 13 Ifmedian closed -allow bicycleS/fue trucks/ambulances to go through Allowing fue tnlcks/ambulances is not feasible while blocking through vehicles 14 It will shift left turning traffic to Bryant & Cowper -review need to extend left tum lanes at • Traffic diversion figures are summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. Bryant & Cowper 15 Prefers Alt I with traffic signal to reduce load on Cowper • 16 Signalize Waverley • The traffic conditions at Waverley do not meet minimum traffic engineering requirements for a traffic signal (i.e., a signal warrant) 17 Opposed to signal • • 18 Prefer removing x-walks for safety at the expense of some inconvenience to his family • 19 Allow pedestrianlbicycle crossings at Waverley Option is not recommended without signal control 20 K.eep it open for pedestrianlbicycle riding 21 Install in-pavement lights on the crosswalks • In-pavement pedestrian LED striping may be used at intersections without traffic lights/stop 22 Study calls for making pedestrianlbicycle friendly improvements. Poor visibility for x-walks at • signs; however, they are not being considered for use on expressways due to higb traffic night -provide lighted x-walkslsignage volumes. 23 Consider providing right tum lane from Oregon to NB Waverley • There is no room on Oregon to accommodate a right tum lane 24 Eliminate Waverley to Lama Verde commuter raceway • 25 Waverley is misspelled -correct the spelling to gamer neighborhood support Noted Bryant 1 Having more signal phases makes sense • 2 Allow permitted/pennissive left turns Permissive left-tum is the current operation at this intersection where left tums can be made when there is a break in cross traffic. Proposed conceptual alternatives will protect left turns 3 Leave as is Improvements are needed based on community feedbacks. 4 Eight phase is best for bicycles 5 Like the left tum option in Alt I Alternative I is no longer being Considered due to community feedbacks 6 Need two crosswalks 7 Alt 2 but leave northbound as is • 8 Bryant too narrow for Alt lproposed lane changes 9 8 phase will require greater extent for No Parking; both 6&8 phase will require longer green Potential improvement in traffic flow and reductions in delay are analyzed and summarized in time allowing less green time for Oregon; status-quo is the best the Traffic Analysis Report. 10 Three lanesori" Bryant reduces avaiiable foiKi width and may be problematic for (presumably Police) to pull vehicles over to the side • 11 In favor of improvements, but not northbound three lanes & prohibition of parking, backing _ out big issue with driveways being close to intersection • Modified alternative will not alter existing parking at Bryant County Response No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Refenedto Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Detailed Design Scope Alternatives Bryant (cont'd) 12 Opposed to creating northbound left tum lane -problematic for eastbound right turning traffic • 13 Provide bicycle slots in both directions -not sOuthbound only • There is not enough right-of-way to create bicycle slot on northbound 14 Makes no sense to direct bicycles out of the way of through traffic Noted 15 Will support any plan supported by bicyclists • 16 Restrict northbound right turns; allow througbJIeft tum traffic only with bicycle lanes • 17 Don't like any of the alts -Dedicate Bryant to bicycles -considerlprohibit througb/left • Any changes to Oregon/Bryant similar to Embarcadero/Bryant are up to the City vehicular movements out of Bryant similar to EmbarcaderolBryant • 18 Poor sight line for eastbound drivers turning right onto Bryant • 19 Drivers run red lights at this intersection • Referred to City Police for enforcement 20 InslaU electric speed sign on Oregon west of Bryant • 21 bicycle community not aware of the project Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee is participating in the project review 22 Should not have included Alt 3 as an alternative 23 Can't fathom staff goal to close frontage road in Alt 3 Alternative 3 was a "theoretical example for demonstration only" provided in response to 24 Alt 3 will correct drivers dodging stop signs/traffic signals comments inquiring about wbat closing the frontage road would look like. General Comments General comments rei tiling to multiple intersections Methodology for changes is flawed; need exist & projected data. reduction in crashes, travel Traffic/collision data and traffic diversion figures the alternatives are summarized in the Traffic 1 times, queuing, delays, shift of traffic, volumes, impact on emergency vehicles etc & justification for each altlproject Analysis Report, to be posted on website when available 2 Do not like any alternates/opposed to any changes Support improvements from Louis to W Bayshore -more work can be done to resolve the 3 Middlefield issue and Midtown Residents Association (MRA) can provide better • communication and partnership to resolve the debate 4 Supports Oregon changes, especially Middlefield improvements & 'timing lights along Oregon • 5 Partial or full closures of Indian, Waverley & Ross creates a barrier between north & southla • major issue when Expressway approved by voters etc/no data for need I 6 Oppose closures due to shift of traffic, avoiding lights to cross Oregon, convenient access, N/5 divide, ease of crossing most of the times except peak hours when folks use other streets, etc. • 7 ~on-si~alized intersections of Waverley, Indian & Ross have less crashes than signalized mtersect'lons ' Collision data is summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 8 Removing cross traffic by closing access to side streets will increase back ups on Oregon & • 1 Middlefield & Speeds on Oregon Tmffic diversion figures are summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report 9 Adding lanes to cross streets will encourage more traffic plus impact parking • 10 General concern about loss of parking for side street residents • II Prohibiting parking close to intersection is good • I 12 Best operating arterial in the city -wish county was in charge of Embarcadero & San Antonio • 1 County Response No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Refened to Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Scope Alternatives Detailed Design General Comments (cont'd) General comments relating to signal operations 13 Do the non-signalized intersections include same 8 or 6 phase alternatives as displayed during oral presentation? No. Non-signalized intersections will remain unsignalized and have different considerations 14 Won't 6 or 8 phase operation need more time creating less time for Oregon? Potential improvement in traffic flow and reductions in delay will be analyzed and summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 15 Better timing of lights will keep traffic moving on Oregon, discouraging traffic from using other streets Timing of signals is subject to improvements on Middlefield 16 Provide all-way green for side streets (presumably 6 phase) + dedicated left tum lanes Alternatives for the signalized intersections include such improvements at some intersections 17 Provide timed signals west to east direction Timing of signals is subject to improvement on Middlefield 18 Time signals at slower speeds Signals will be timed based on posted speed limits This is not a feasible or acceptable use of the blinking "don't walk" signal. The blinking signal Link the blinking don't walk red band to a blinking red or over yellow for crossing traffic to • is timed to give pedestrians already in the intersection time to finish crossing while the signal 19 improve traffic flow on Oregon light is still green. A solid "don't walk" signal is used when signal goes yellow to tell pedestrian! that they should no longer be in the intersection. 20 Until the light timing at ECR can be addressed, timing signals on Oregon will only cause more • Traffic signal at OregonlEl Camino Real is maintained by the Caltrans back ups at ECR 21 Countdown pedestrian signals are a good idea • Pedestrian countdown signals are part of this project and some have already been installed along Oregon Expressway Extend pedestrian signal timing by 2 to 3 seconds -lack of ramps slows down wheelchair 22 . crOSSlDg5 • Whee1-chair accessible ramps are included in aU proposed conceptual alternatives. 23 Shorten cycle lengths and provide longer green times for bicycles to cross Oregon • Cycle length on oregon Expressway can be shortened only if Middlefield is improved. Middlefield is the controlling intersection (see traffic analysis report). General comments relating to bicycles 24 Don't put bicycle lanes on Oregon Project does not include bicycle lanes along Oregon Expressway County policy is to delineate expressways for bicycle use but not designate expressway 25 Consider bicycle route signs on Oregon to denote bicycle routes • shoulders as bicycle lanes or bicycle routes. Signs indicating cross-street bicycle routes can be considered in consultation with the City. 26 Not enough shoulder for bicycles • • 27 Improve line of sight for driveways to better see bicycles • • 28 Add bicycle loops on all side residential streets • Bicycle loops are only feasible with bicycle slots; they will be provided where bicycle slots exis 29 Plan does not provide bicycle boulevard enhancement east of Middlefield Road, rather Plan does not remove any existing bicycle boulevards. Modifications can be made to removes one intersections as part of future City bicycle boulevard projects. General comments relating to pedestrians 30 Drivers don't yield to pedestrians/bicycles. comers lack curb ramps, x-walks lead into poles & bushes • Project includes new curb cuts and removing obstacles along crosswalks 31 Replace rolled curb with vertical curb when prohibiting parking to discourage sidewalk riding • General comments relating to other issues 32 Provide continuous sidewalk-on south side! retaining foliage 33 Add sidewalk between Midtown & Oregon bicycle bridge Proposed new sidewalk locations were developed as part oflbe 2008 Update to the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study. Based on comments received, the 2008 34 Eliminate proposed sidewalk between Bryant & Waverley -not enough foliage -foliage Update Oregon Expressway pedestrian route plan was modified to change the recommendations for new sidewalk between High Street and Waverley to be very long term mitigates sound; isolate sound wall-poor idea triggered if area redevelops or pedestrian demand is present Please see www.expressways.info 35 Do not install new sidewalk; Need landscape strip for sound mitigation -Landscape is only 4' for more information. close to South Court -~gon A.ve alrea~¥has sidewalk County Response No. Public Input Addressediti Will be Proposed Referred to Bvaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Detailed Design Scope Alternatives General Comments (cont'd) General comments relating to other issues 36 Provide police enforcement for red tight running • • Referred to City Police Department. New rat boxes are effective tools proven to enhance red light enforcement Rat boxes are an enforcement tool to control red light running. which many residents say is a 37 Concern about use ofmt boxes & associated enforcement sirens noise • major problem along Oregon Expressway. Concerns about enforcement sirens will be referred to the City Police. 38 Spend the money on red light cameras and enforcement rather than improvements • These ere not eligtDle uses for the project's grant funds. 39 Consider speed bumps to slow down vehicles • • Speed bumps on the cross streets would be a City project 40 Consider Traffic impacts of new purposed police station & other developments on Park Blvd • Development impacts & related mitigations are generally part of environmental analysis for the & Oregon improvement land use developments to be done by the City 41 Add bulb outs at all locations except W Bayshore, Middlefield, & Bryant like Louis • 42 Do not cut trees and bushes from Oregon Project does not include removing trees along Oregon Expressway 43 Do not install sound walls • 44 Install sound walls on Oregon prior to other improvements • Sound waUs are not part of the project and are not an allowable use ofthe grant funds 45 Improved/widened landscaped medians • There is no right of way to widen medians. 46 Consider alternative asphaltic concrete surface reducing noise Will refer to maintenance 47 Oregon onto 101 north needs improvement/also serious potholes in the area • Caltrans has been notified of potholes and VTA has been asked to prioritize improvements to the 10l/0regon interchange . 48 Paint "keep clear" legend on Middlefield at Garland • • 49 Spend funds changing Alma to an expressway &. improve AlmalEmbarcadero interchange • • These locations are on city streets outside the bOl.mdaries of the Oregon Improvement project. 50 Install "no tum on red when children present" at N CalifomialMiddlefield • • 51 Connect pedestrian bridge over 10 I to S Palo Alto -widen Frontage rd to get to Greer Park • • Bus stop on SB Middlefield at Colomdo is very unsafe. The shelter blocks the entire sidewalk Valley Ttansportation Authority (VTA) staff reviewed site in field to confinn that the clearanCe! meet ADA regulations. The distance from face of curb to closest shelter leg is 48" which 52 and much ofthe space between the shelter and the curb. Strollers are almost over the curb as • exceeds ADA. The shelter is safe as-is. Another option is to remove the bUR RhelteT, which is they tTy to go around the shelter. Very dangerous with traffic and literally inches from the not desirable by those who have to wait for the bus under the sun. Please call VTA at (408) 321-space around the shelter. 5800 ref # 71239 for further discussion. The Oregon/Alma interchange is not part of the project scope. This is a separate project 53 Spend money to fix: Alma intersection • identified in the Comprebensive County Expressway Planning Study that is estimated to cost $130 million to replace and improve. 54 Provide flyover at OregonlECR • Not an eligible use of the project's grant funds 5S Install a RAT box: at ECR/Oregon • This signal is outside the project's scope 56 Spend funds on transit alts • • Not an eligible use of the project's grant funds 57 Put ParklRide lot at 101 and provide shuttle to Stanford Research Park General comments relating the community outreach process S8 People were not allowed to vote for "status quo" except for "write-ins" which reduces votes No ChangelStatus Quo option is available if an other options are found to be infeasible &. 59 Is there a "no change" option; opposed to the project unacceptable to the community at large &. policy makers I 60 Questionnaire at the top only include positive aspects. Include negative aspects also The pros & cons lists were included on each preliminary conceptual alternative drawing 61 The common signalized intersection improvements indicated on the top of the questionnaire are excellent --_ .... _._---,--- County Response No. Public Input Addressed in Will be Proposed Referred to Evaluated in Out of Additional Remarks Conceptual City Scope Ahematives Detailed Design General Comments (cont'd) General comments relating the community outreach process Approx 70 people attended the meeting; others reviewed the preliminary conceptual alternatives! 62 Low tum out on June 9 due to final week of school & graduations/not informed about meeting and provided comments via email or by fax/post; in addition, a 3rd community meeting will be I held in early 2009 to review the proposed conceptual alternatives ! Meetings were published as improvements to Oregon & not side streets diminishing side street 63 affected residents interest in attending meetings include Middlefield residents/misleading postcard invitation 64 Excellent Meeting 65 Restart the process 66 8128 meeting was waste of time. no new info/data given, sound system was bad -NEED 8128 meeting was arranged at the special request ofMRA and MRA invited its members. DAT AlJUSTIFICATION to provide input Traffic data is summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report Web site now has all the information available at the June 9 meeting. Proposed conceptual 67 Improve your website to look similar to sfcta.org/contentiview/42512521 alternatives and the Traffic Analysis Report wiD be available on the web prior to the next community meeting in January 2009. Website updates is an ongoing process Gi"iieral project questions 67 What is the cost ofthe project? $3.5 million is available -Actual project cost cannot be determined until the preferred alternatives are selected and designed 68 Will facilitating traffic on Oregon discourage cut through traffic through neighborhood streets? Traffic is cutting through the neighborhoods due to congestion, especially at Middlefield. Any improvements will help motivate drivers not to cut through neighborhoods 69 Is there a significant number of accidents? C01lision data will be summarized in the Traffic Analysis Report. 70 Why improve flow on Oregon with back-ups at both ends? Improvements at ECR & US 101 are being considered by the City of Palo Alto & VT A respectively 71 Who will prepare the environmental documents? The County is the lead agency and win be responsible for preparing environmental clearance documents once the scope of work bas been finalized. -Notices were mailed to all within 1/4 mile radius of project limits, members ofPABAC, 72 Who was informed about the public meetings? affected PTAs & neighborhood associations. Meetings announcements were advertised in local newspapers. Web site now has all the information available at the June 9 meeting. Proposed conceptual 73 Web site bad no info about Bryant. Waverley etc as of8/25. why not? alternatives and the Traffic Analysis Report will be available on the web prior to the next ---- community meeting inJanu1ll}'2009. Kimley-Hom and Associates. Inc. C -Preliminary Conceptual Alternatives (including alternatives that are no longer considered) County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project .. .,.. Kimley .. Hom .. L.j and Associates. Inc. Conceptual Plans and Evaluations County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Improvement Alternatives Evaluation (Including Alternatives No Longer Considered) " .. >'. . Intenection .Intersection Advantages' ("J'ros") D"'~4v8Jl.i@.~· ("Cons") Alternative . . .. ..... ..... . '.' Oregon • Improved bicycle detection and timing • None Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing ramps atW. Alternative • Pedestrian countdown signal Bayshore I Road Oregon • Eliminates potential collision • No left turn from Oregon Expressway Alternative • Enhances safety for all modes of traffic Expressway to Indian at Indian I • No left turn from Indian to Drive Oregon Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Left turn or through traffic • Left turns from both directions of Greer are served first queue may occasionally followed by through movements exceed the short tum- • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing pockets on Greer and through movements block traffic • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and • Parking to be prohibited Alternative pedestrianlbicycle movements for about 75 feet on both 1 • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions sides of Greer south of • Improved signal display Oregon Expressway .. Straightened crosswalks • Separate left and through lanes • Intersection jog is reduced • Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • One crosswalk to cross • Vehicular movements from one direction of Greer are Oregon Expressway (two served first followed by movements from other directions crosswalk option is not on Greer recommended as it will • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing cause long wait time to left and through movements cross Oregon Expressway) Alternative • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and • Parking to be prohibited Oregon 2 pedestrianlbicycle movements for about 75 feet on both • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions sides of Greer !!!!!!1! of Expressway • Improves signal display Oregon Expressway at Greer • Straightened crosswalks Road • Intersection jog is reduced • Enlianced bicycle detection and timing for Greer going southbound • Minimizes queuing on Greer (existing short turn-pockets) • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • One crosswalk to cross • Vehicular movements from one direction of Greer are Oregon Expressway (two served first followed by movements from other directions crosswalk option is not on Greer recommended as it will • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing cause long wait time to left and through movements cross Oregon Expressway) • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and • Parking to be prohibited Alternative pedestrianlbicycle movements for about 75 feet on both • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions sides of Greer south of 3 • Improved signal display Oregon Expressway • Improves crosswalk alignment • Requires closure of • Intersection jog is reduced frontage road • Enhanced bicycl~ detection and timing for Greer on southbound • Minimizes queuing on Greer (existing short turn-pockets) • Eliminates conflicts with frontage road for all modes of traffic Improvement Alternatives Evaluation (Including Alternatives No Longer Considered) --'" ; . llitersection Ilttersection Advantages ("Pr~") ])~a4y#~ges ("C;~ns") :Aiih.tive -, . : • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Parking to be prohibited • Left turns from both directions of Louis are served first for about 100 and 130 feet followed by through movements on both sides of Louis • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing north. and south of Oregon through movements Expressway, respectively. • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and • No dedicated bicycle lane Alternative pedestrian and bicyclist movements at intersection 1 • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions • Improved signal display • Straightened crosswalks • Separate left and through lanes • Tighter radius at intersection comers to reduce speed of right turning vehicles Oregon • Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Requires removal of one at Louis • Vehicular movements from one direction of Louis are crosswalk. crossing Oregon Road served first followed by movements from other directions Expressway (two on Louis crosswalk. option is not • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing recommended as it will left and through movements cause long wait time to • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and cross Oregon Expressway) Alternative pedestrianlbicycle movements • Parking to be prohibited 2 • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions for about 100 feet on both • Improved signal display sides of Louis north and • Straightened crosswalks south of Oregon • Separate right-turn lanes on Louis Expressway • Green phase is served separately for each direction on Louis • Minimizes queuing on Louis (existing short turn-pockets) • Eliminates turning vehicles going over curbs/sidewalks • Eliminates potential collision • No left tum from Oregon • Enhances safety for all modes of traffic Expressway to Ross Alternative • Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby • No left turn from Ross to 1 signalized intersections to cross Oregon Expressway Oregon Expressway • No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Oregon Expressway Expressway • Continues to allow left turn from Oregon Expressway • No left turn from Oregon at Ross during non-peak periods Expressway during peak Road. • Provides new sidewalk. for pedestrians to go to nearby periods signalized intersections to cross Oregon Expressway • Prohibits left turns coming Alternative safely out from Ross 2 • Reduces potential collision and enhances safety but to a • No through traffic on Ross lesser extent to Alternative 1 to cross Oregon Expressway Improvement Alternatives Evaluation (Including Alternatives No Longer Considered) , IDterseetioD IDterseedoD , AdvaDtaga ("Prf,lS") DisadvutageS ("CODS,,) Alternadve C' • Most efficient signal operation • Requires 3 and 5 feet • Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on reduction of landscape Oregon Expressway strip on 3 sides (the • Improves intersection level of service by a grade southeas' northeast, and • Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield northwest sides) • . Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals Alternative • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield are served 1 first followed by through movements • Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modal traffic for all directions • Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield • Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide • Existing parking conditions remain unaffected • More efficient signal operation • Requires 3 and 5 feet • Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on reduction of landscape Oregon Expressway. strip on 2 sides (the • Improves intersection level of service by a grade southeast and northwest Oregon • Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield sides) Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • One through lane for at Alternative • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield are served westbound Middlefield Middlefield 2 first followed by through movements Road • Bicycle shoulder on Middlefield North of Oregon Expressway • Dedicated right turn lanes on northbound on Middlefield • Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide • Existing parking conditions remain unaffected CI Most efficient signal operation CI Requires 5 feet reduction • Minimizes delay at intersection and system-wide on of landscape strip on 1 Oregon Expressway side (the northwest side) • Improves intersection level of service by a grade • Narrower lanes • Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield Alternative • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Left turns from both directions of Middlefield are served 3 first followed by through movement • Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modal traffic for all directionS • Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield • Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide • Existing parking conditions remain unaffected • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Left turn or through traffic • Left turns from both directions of Cowper are served first queue may occasionally followed by through movements exceed the short tum- • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing pockets on Cowper and Oregon traffic block traffic Expressway Alternative • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and • Parking to be prohibited at Cowper 1 pedestrianlbicycle movements for about 60 feet on Street • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions Cowper south of Oregon • Improved signal display Expressway • Straightened crosswalks • Separate left and through lanes • Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway Improvement Alternatives Evaluation (Including Alternatives No Longer Considered) " , "i I~tersection Intersection Advant .. es ("Pros") DIs'4~~es ("Cons,,) Alternative , ," >.,.c·:',:,,,, ,,;, '. , . • Eliminates potential collision • Traffic on Waverley • Enhances safety for all modes of traffic cannot cross the • Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized expressway_ Alternative intersections for safer expressway pedestrian/bicycle • No left tmn from Oregon 1 crossing Expressway to Waverley • No left tmn from Oregon Waverley to Oregon Expressway Expressway at Waverley • Continues to allow left turn from Oregon Expressway • No lefttmn from Oregon Street during non~peak periods Expressway during peak • Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized periods Alternative intersections for safer expressway pedestrian/bicycle • Prohibits left turns coming 2 crossing out from Waverley • Improves intersection traffic safety • No through traffic on Waverley to cross expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Left turn or through traffic • Left turns from both directions of Bryant are served first queue may occasionally followed by through movements exceed the short turn~ • Eliminates contlicts between left turners and opposing pockets on Bryant and Oregon through movements block traffic Expressway Alternative • Eliminates conflicts between left tmn traffic and • Parking to be prohibited at Bryant 1 pedestrian/bicycle movements for about 75 feet on both Street • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions sides of Bryant !m!!I! of • Improves signal display Oregon Expressway • Improves crosswalk alignment • Separate left and through lanes • Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • One crosswalk to cross • Vehicular movements from one direction of Bryant are Oregon Expressway (two served first followed by movements from other directions crosswalk option is not onBryimt recommended as it will • Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing cause long wait time to left and through movements cross Oregon Expressway) Alternative • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and • Left and through 2 pedestrian/bicycle movements movements will share the • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions same lane on Bryant • Improves signal display • Parking to be prohibited • Improves crosswalk alignment for about 75 feet on both • Enhanced bicycle detection and timing for Bryant on sides of Bryant south of southbound Oregon Expressway • Minimizes queuing on Bryant (existing short turn- Oregon pockets) Expressway • Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals • Requires closure of at Bryant • Vehicular movements from one direction of Bryant are frontage road Street served first followed by movements from other directions • Parking to be prohibited on Bryant on all sides of Bryant for • Eliminates contlicts between left turners and opposing 75 feet left and through movements · One crosswalk to cross • Eliminates conflicts between left turn traffic and Oregon Expressway (two Alternative pedestrian/bicycle movements crosswalk option is not • Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions recommended as it will 3 • Improves signal display cause long wait time to • Improves crosswalk alignment cross Oregon Expressway) · Enhanced bicycle detection and timing for Bryant on southbound · Minimizes queuing on Bryant (existing short turn- pockets) • Eliminates contlicts with frontage road for all modes of traffic ./ /IMPROVE LANDING AREA ' ----~-----~-;~-~---T-{-.. -.. -.-.--.. ~-.--... --~ ... '--<..--/~;::-:;;;;i:-'7::,:-;I;:'·"·'+-.,' '~;;;:"~:;i:;----- m _______ m-m------~------rd-d-_,_--':'1:.'=--<?RE GON".Ei)(. ·,p.: ...•. ;ft. E .. $ .... SWAY "~,\ • ,j) __ dd ____ ~ ___ ~ __ __'_;__,~~,~-~~dl'''~''-'''--'------ IL-D" ....... -_ .. -_ ........ '. ] Xl x: ------------------~-~~~. xr4ap.."'(S'fl{s.~6 '. :-i<:.:,:,,:.,.~;:.· •. ~ ·'A'Ol' .. ';'/";":", ",' ~.,--.. ;\', .~:~,,':': Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros 1:'TmplOved bicycle detection and timing 2. Enhanced pedestrian crossing ramps 3. Pedestrian counIdoWn signal Cons None GRAPHIC SCALE t-w-u--r J (1M....,) 1 blob _ 40 ft. Oregon Expressway and West Bayshore Road ~~~_t& OREGON EXPRESSWAY . , I,,-,·-l -'"' ./ -____ .______ . ___ . _______________ ... .. .. _________________________________ .... 0-" ---------_ .... ----_ .. -----------------------_ .... _ .............. ------------_ .. -----------_ ...... --_ .............. ' " \ , \ /' \~::::t~~ ___ L~~~::::~:_~:::~~~~~~~~~~~: ________ _ --~------------------------------------------~----------r-----"~~------S;;!-------------------~:= L':;I'""';'i?~",,};,7'~ \ .. 1"1 \ ZW lj « > !! O~!i Z ·Ot! -I; Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project 6 Pros 1:'EUminates potential collisions 2.· Enhances safety for an modes of traffic Cons "'""["No left tum from Oregon Expressway to Indian 2. No left tum from Indian to Oregon Expressway GRAPIUC SCAlE to-w--; ('" 11ft I 11aaII.4O tL Oregon Expressway and Indian Road ~=~==--. 00 ...... ~ Ix 16\ t~ PROHIBIT PARKING TO CROSSWALK t /: .. ' .. ' ~It PR()fI1t:Ht PARKING TO CROSSWALK t Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros 1:Enhanced pedeslrlan C!DIlSingwith countdown signals 2. Lefttums from both dlrecllonsofGreer are SflMId first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left wm trallie and pedlbike movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow oftratlic for aU directions 6. Improved signal display 7. Siraightenad crosswalks 6. Separate left and through lanes 9. Intersection jog Is reduced 10. Two crosswalks to cross Oregon ExpIassway Cons 1:Left tum or through traffic queue may occaslonaRy exceed the short tum-pockets on Greer and block tratlic 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 faeton both sides of Greer south of Oregon Expressway Pros 1.Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals 2. Vehicular movements from one dlrecllon of Greer are served first foUOwad by movements tom other directions on Greer 3. Eliminates confRcts between left turners and opposing left and through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traftic and pedJbtke movements 5. Allows for more-orderly flow of traffic for aD directions 6. Improves signal display 7. Improves crosswalk alignment 6. Intersection jog is reduced 9. Enhanced bicycle detecUon and timing for Gmer on southbound 10. Minimlres queuing on Greer (existing short tum-pockets) Cons ~ crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk opllon Is not recommended as It Will cause long wait lime to cross Oregon Exprassway) 2. Parking 10 be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer south of Oregon Expressway GRAPHIC SCALE L-• ..LJ-i i (III ....... 1 taR. 40 a. \16\ ___ . ,; t\~ I ---fi--t.-,\ (i --------~-~--~~. ~x x ~i 6 PHASE \ I . PROHIBIT ! PARKINGTO ! CROSSWALK i t ! y PROHIBIT PARKING TO CROSSWALK t Alternative 2 (For Discussion Only) Oregon Expressway and Greer Road ~-n~ .. :;:r" • • • -... -,. , -. _A:-_: ____ ~ . Do ---------_ .. -------------------------------- PROHIBIT PARKING TO' CROSSWALK t 6 PHASE Alternative 3 _.~i--~~:--------------------------.. --------- ~--------------------------------------- (Theoretical Example for Demonstration Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros "'T.Enhanced pedestrian crossing wHh countdown signals 2. Vehicular movements from one dlrectlon of Greer are served first followed by movements from other directia1s on Greer 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing left and through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum trafIic and pedlbike movements 5. Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions 6. Improved signal display 7. Improves crosswalk alignment 8. Intersection jog is reduced 9. Enhanced bicycle detection and timing for Greer on soulhbound 10. Minimizes queuing on Greer (existi1g short tum-pockets) 11. Eliminates conflicts with frontage road for all modes of traffic Cons 1.One crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk option is not recommended as It will cause long wait time to cross Oregon Expressway) 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Greer south of Oregon Expressway 3. Requires closure of fronIage road GRAPHIC SCALE L--tJ--j ( ....... ) 1"'-40 IL Oregon Expressway and Greer Road ~=~~m r · \ ... .. ~l \~\~ . .. :~==::-~=====-~~== .• =~--c:::-~=:=:>~ ~~'zl.,C---~=-:-=====::'~::::='::=-=====-~:­t'.h Pros 1.Blminates potential collisions 2. Enhances safety for aU modes of Iraffic 3. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized Intersections to cross Oregon ElCpI"essway =:~=~:=~:=_~~=::=.==-~"'t:··.·--~~-=-~hl c:::::= --=~ __ ===~_=-~~~~_-= . CLOSE MEDIA~ (; •• Cons 1. No left tum from Oregon Expressway to Ross 2. No left tum from Ross to Oragon Expressway 3. No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Expressway -NEW· LANDSCAPlNG r 1:A.t""I"'<.I::.~~VVAY • • L:....--::7'=~"~,~,r;I:7:';:=,n:;F~~':~~,~~7,::-:c~::::.~ ••. ' •. \ \.1' \1 ,I RAISED MEDIAN (TYP) 1--.-------------------------1-----------.-. 1''''7-it (1.. _______ . ________ . _____ . _________ . _____ ._. ________ . ________ . ____ _ i I - Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) ._._.:_~.~-_.=~~:~~~~~~~-~~.----.=.-====----I j \, __ ._. ______ .~----.=.-.-/6' 1!\1!O\~ ___ . .p' o~ "* . __ . ________ -.:>--x ID '<\. =---=--==~_====.---.-------~, ~\r <~~-==--=-===~:=----~ ;~ -----~, _~.~ __ ------~=T~=~~~~~~ISt~-===---=~:::::--::-:2 EXPRES . • x .'!r-' --~-~:~:~~~1 r rl~~~~~£~~:~~~~~ Alternative 2 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros 1.AJ1ows left turn from Oregon Expressway during non-peak periods 2. Provides new sidewalk for pedestrians to go to nearby signalized Intersections to cross Oregon Expressway safely 3. Red!l!=8$ potential con;$ionll lint! enhafl&eS &Urety but to a lesser extent to AItematiYe 1 Cons ""1:""No left tum from Oregon Expressway dining peak periods 2. ProhIbits left turns comilg out from Ross 3. No through traffic on Ross to cross Oregon Expressway GRAPHIC SCALE 1-. SJ-i T ( ..... , I"'. eo ft. Oregon Expressway and Ross Road ~~::=..-.. ) ) -'-'j i -'1 I 'PROHIBIT i PARKINGTO ! CROSSWALK I t I PROHIBIT :PARKING.:TO CROSSWALK t , 'A ... / ....•••••..•. ---------~-....... -. t(...-:_; i ! i ! j-..• _--- ~ .. -PROHIBIT I PARKING TO I~~r~ Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros ---.;:-enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Louis are served filsI folloWed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left turners and opposing through movemanls 4. ElIminates confticls between left tum traffic and pedestrian movemanIs 5. AllOws for more orderly !low of traffic for aU diractIons 6. Improved signal display 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. TIghter radius at intersection COI1lefS to reduce speed of right lumlng vehicles 10. Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway Cons 1.Parklng to be prohibited for about 100 and 130 feet on both sides of louis nonb and south of Oregon Expressway. respedi.vely 2. No dedicated bicycle lane at intersection Pros ---.;:-enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdoWn signals 2. Vehicular movemenls from one direction of Louis are served first followed by movements from o1her directions on louis 3. ElIminates conftlcls between left IumeIS and opposing left and ttmlugh movemanls 4. Eliminates conlllcls between left turn trafIIc and pedlblke movements 5. Allows for more orderly tIOw oftrellk: for all directions 6. Improved slgnelolSplay 7. Stralghtenadcro~ 8. Separate rlght·tum lanes on louis 9. Minimizes queuing on louis (exisIlng short tum-pockel:s) 10. Eliminates lumlng vehicles going over curbs/sidewalks Cons ---:;:--Requires removal of ona crosswalk crossing Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk option Is not recommended as Itwln cause long walt lime to cross Oregon ExpIessway) 2. Parting to be prohibited for about 100 feet on both sides of Louis north and south of Oregon Expressway GRAPHIC SCALE t-••• t\;J-f J ,_nsf) IfIIoh_1O It. PROHIBIT PARKING TO CROSSWALK t 3... ___ • __ ""_~ ___ ¥ _____ ~~ ....... _-5t~~ ! I 1/ I i PROHIBIT ! PARKING TO 1 CROSl.WAll< I .. -' \ I I [1:!(.--... __ .--_ .... _ ...... -...... . .Iii L-1.. utfC=:::-':-::::-:":::'=":--==-=-=--=~ \\ II --.-~ __ J i 'PROHIBIT I PARKING TO. . I CROSSWALK I t ! i I • "iD"'"' ~'~i-~. I \ i i ,---- i··_PROHIBIT I PARKING TO I CROSSWALK I ................ ! ... . I~ i ! I Alternative 2 (For Discussion Only) Oregon Expressway and Louis Road ~~~_m ESTMA TED No. OF lREES TO BE REMOVED=O q( '; , ill J'I ill :1/ /' MIDDLEFIE;i ~ L-'::C=:7C=--=:2---=-=:=-=~~=--=~-':W= : : :)1 " ~t .~. 10" • \ EXlSnNG "NO PARKING ANY llME" J' .,. W, 9 ;:---=-·-=-.--.=.-:~=-_~~_=-__ ~_~_:L~~~. ESTMA lED . No:' OF TREES TO BE REMOVED=4 Pros 1.MostaJflclent slOnal Dp8I8IIon 2. Mlnbnlzes delay at Intersection and system-wlde on Oregon Expressway 3. Improves Intersection level of service by a grade 4. Reduces queuing and delay on MIddlefield 5. Enhanced pedestrian crossing with counIdown signals 6. Left tums from both directions of MIddIe&eld are seMKI . first followed by through movements 7. Allows for more orderly flow of mulU-modal traI!ic br all directions 8. Separate left and through lanas on M'1dcIeIIe1d 9. Improves air quality by reducing congeslIon system-wide Cons 1.Requlras 3 and 5 faet reduction of landscape strip on the northeast and norttMest sides, respectively " 2. Requires 3 feet on the southwest side '. '. ..... . EXI~i1.·.N~.· ... ::.::'.::' ' .. ~\ 3. Reductionoflandscapestrlpon3sldesoflhe -~-. -.-:.:*:'" ...... ~ .. ·~--:i:-·~--·~ .. ~··"-.=~:::O:=P=A==RE§:§I~§~§NA§GN§Y§T§IMg~~::·~ .. § .. § .. ·~\§ .. §3:~~ §~~~-u~C~n~O==N:':OF=·~~ .. ~-·~'!'·~~· -~'<jil~ ~ 'x ! k .~I x i ~ LANDSCAPE SlRIP. EXISllNG SIDEWALK TO h~ e~' ~ ........ ,., . IntersecHon ". ,.' ."; ..... ". NO PARKING .. "'·A. N'i'.·.n ... M .. E •... " . -3 REDucnON OF···." i LANDSCAPE STRIP.' ,:. .. i ..EXISTING SIDEWALK TO ', .. ' ~.,,' . i ESTMA TED No. OF TREES TO BE REMOVED=4 [STMA lED No. Of' TREES TO BE REMOVED=O REMAIN. . .' . ", i : '.. . '. -.':":.-:.-: .. ,.,:>:-. .:d(:·.~',':Y' i ;, ESTMATED No. OF lREESTO i BE REMOVED=5 i REMAIN. Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) '\ ". II I i I I :',;' . . BE REMOVED=:4 \ . ill I III ., EsiMATEO'N6;'OFlREES TO iJ i I ! l :.~;.::;: . :;.' .{ .... ;;,?/:. . , •. ' iI ! ' ··:LANDSCAPE SlRIP. .., ,III .;, . 1'-.. ',:. ":'EXISllN~"'"'' '. !, , 'r' ,'< ;:5 ;REDUCTION Of' "7AM-7PM NO PARKING" ~~c:.::,,~:;;;:;!;~;~::c~9;~~~;);.),: : ~.---~-~[~:E~~~i~~ ____ :----~--__ 49'jQ' -. -----,--1 0" -46'-. ---.-=7==================~======~==9§===========~-~ 9 • • 10 -"l't x 17' -~~~~~;e--=-~=~~o_-=---=~~ : I' 'I ) ;~\li~C·-;;-·~="":"<'-::=::~.~.~-:~~~,·,:.'~~::.I\ \-3' REDUC1l0N OF .... ',. ' .' ! LANDSCAPE STRIP. r i '., " . i EXISllNG SIDEWALK TO I I I ..' '. . i ESlMA TED No. OF TREES TO BEREMOVED=4 REMAIN. I I! l Alternative 2 (For Discussion O'nly) . ES1MA~ R~~O~D~~ES TO \ I Pros ~ore efficient signal operallon 2. Minimizes delay at InlelSecllon 3. Improves Intersection level of service by a grade 4. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield 5. Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals 6. Left tums from both directions cI Middlefield are served first followed by tIvough movements 7. Bicycle shoulders on Middlefield North of Oregon Expressway 8. Dedicated right turn lenes on northbound on Mlddlelleld Cons l.ReqUires 3 and 5 faet reduction of landscape snip on the southeast and northwest sides, respectively 2. Reduction of landscape strip on 2 sides of the Intersection 3. One through lane for westbound Middlefield GRAPHIC SCALE tw .. ;LJ--j (111-, _ ID ... County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road ~n=,,:_ ... ESTMA TED No. OF lREES TO BE REMOVED=O EXISTING "NO PARKING ANY liME" \ Ii' Ii I ill I, "1 II/ I' . !11 ill -~~-~-~~;;~~~5JL ' , ,t l;f ~ I! 46'T? ESTMA TED No. OF lREES TO BE REMOVED=4 ··· E~"N~ "'AM-7PN NO ~"I ~ 9 '9.5' :::~:::.:~==::::::::::=::~:::: ........... -.-.. u_ ...... _ ..... _ ........ :, ... -----~ ,Ix f x IF: : .;:::=j-\:::.~=:::i;!:::::::.~:.-::::I:._:~::.=:=:..::_:=·._:.=.=:._=_=.::.._;;:-:-:::::>\ • . . . •. I I EXISTI~G \ EXISTING "NO PARKING ANY liME" ESTMA TED No. OF lREES TO BE REMOVED=O ~J i'l i I "NO PARKING ANY TIME" I ! i I I I I I 1 , : I . I . /--.. \ '1' ESTMATED No. OF lREES TO I I I ." \. '! BE REMOVED=O i ! ! Alternative 3 (For Discussion Only) Pros 1.Most efficient signal operation 2. Minimizes delay at Intersectlon and system-wide on Oregon Expressway 3. Improves Intersection level at service by a grade 4. Reduces queuing and delay on Middlefield 5. Enhanced pedestrian crossing with COI.I'Itdown signals 6. Left turns from both diredions or Middlefield are served first followed by through movements 7. Allows for more orderly flow of multi-modallraffic for aU diredions 8. Separate left and through lanes on Middlefield 9. Improves air quality by reducing congestion system-wide Cons ~equires S feel reduction of landscape strip on the northwest side 2. Narrower Janes GRAPHIC SCALE t-.-lJ--1 (III ..... ' ..... eo a. County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Oregon Expressway and Middlefield Road ~~~t& I: : I ~ll~i i wwl! o.W ·i 1 ~IV i:. LL.~ i.~ ". ·'L.;'~]iNJ f"\ r · J Q. ·\den ···J .. q ....••. :::::~~:~:~~:::~::~~::::=-:=-:=::=~~;-~/ __ -__________ u ___________ ~----., , 1" I Ii \ • I • Ii i i : ! !, ! I , I Iii l,~:::::::=====::::::==2==::;=_ 'xxi::: . . x J ----;---=~~~~--~(==~-.:-(~~:-~:--:::::~ _____ 0 __________________________________________________ Ik: 8 PHASE ANTON COURT)( )( x x :::=::=~::-:~-~:::~r::::~:::::::~~-::.:=_:::_:::~"~\\ '~\-o I ! ! I ! i : ! ~: .... ~.~ ~It ((:·~~~~~~~Jf~t i t~~~~~;:ft.i? ,.~.,::',. I ! t " . i! .' 1 I Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project -~·-"·""~· .. i! , Pros ~ EnIlancedpedestrlan crossing with c:ounIdown signals 2. Left turns from both directions of Cowper 8/8 seIV8d first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left lumeIs and opposing bailie 4. Ellmlnatas conflicts between laft tum traIIic and ped/bike movements 5. AUow8 for more orderty _flow of bailie for all diI8cIlons 6. Improved signal display 7. Straightened crosswalks 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. Two crosswalks to cross Oregon Expressway Cons 1Teft turn or through traffic queue may occasionally eJtC8ed the short tum-pockets on COWper and block trallic 2. Parking to be prohlbltad for about 80 feet on Cowper south of Oregon Expressway GRAPHIC SCALE L--iJ--T i .-_1 ... -.... Oregon Expressway and Cowper Street ~~~ .. I: : W l-i '---f -II W ,..---________ --:----.... =~_=~:::_==::===~~:=~=~~~~:-:--:==-=~:=:~~=~; ,£1 ~: ~ P~~lIminate6 potential coIUsions . -------. --------------------------------------...:.:..-------"--y----:~!;J)~~ 2. Enhances safety for all modes ottralllc _:... _______________ L _______ ---3. Provides new sidewalk connection 10 nearby ______________________________________ _ signalized intersections for safar expressway CLOSE MEDIAN pedlbike aossing -NEW LANDSCAPING Cons 1."T"raffic on Waverley camot aoss the expressway 2. No left tum from Oregon Expressway 10 Waverley 3. No left tum from Wavartey to Oregon Expressw.1}' .'-.. :: .. :". :.:~~ ""'\ Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) \ >- ~-=--=:=~::==-~:===:::=:=:=::=:~~=::::=:::::=::::::::::::::7----------------- x r:;: ~ (~--~~~~~_~1:=_-_~~_=~_=------~-~--=-~~--~-----~--~--~·~---.-----~~-~~~---~~-------------.~~.~ RAISED MEDIAN (TYP) x x r "(~~~-t~~~:::~~-~~~~-~~~;~~~~~;~~~~;~~~~~~~.~~~~;~:~~~~~;;;~~_~;~~;;;_~_~;;;;_~-_~_~;~-~~~~~~~~;~~~~:~~~~~~~~. ! Pros 1:"Ailows left tum from Oregon Expressway during non-peak periods 2. Provides new sidewalk connection to nearby signalized intersections for safer expressway pedlbike crossing 3. Improves intersection Iraffic safety Cons ----~-----=~==============~~~~==~~~: ~=~=== _____ ----.i-------· 1.N"0 left tum from Oregon Expressway during peak periods 2. Prohibits left turns coming out from Waverley 3. No through traffic on Waverley to cross elCPfSSSWBy OREGON EXPRESSWAY y;.?ia;. JI~! Alternative 2 (For Discussion Only) " County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project \ 1 ! RAISED MEDIAN (TYP) ~((.,~~:;~:~;;~~;~;~;;;~=;~=;;:-~:~~:~;-;:~;;:;::;~;;;:~~:-~;:::~~;: ,. 11 { , i: GRAPHIC SCALE Lw • ..u-r ........ -- (III ..... ' 1_-40 a. Oregon Expressway and Waverley Street ~~~k / ! ! I : : ::: LI-!! 'i ~·.i ~"',' : I ·t I:' ZW './: I!! '« Wil ! l.j ~ Ii i i, !.a: >-L i .l ::., '. r I: : !!' (J) I:. "~~J III pi!. _____________ . __ _ ::::::::::::::::=:====~i~~)!~ \~"ir~:~~:::~~"-' o ...... ~ IX ~ .~---------------~\------.. ---------------~!-------- PROHIBIT PARKING .TO CROSSWALK ! PROHIBIT PARKING TO CROSSWALK ! Alternative 1 (For Discussion Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros 1:"Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals 2. lett turns from both dlractlons of Bryant ara served first followed by through movements 3. Eliminates conflicts between left tumers and oppOSing tlvough moYements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traIIic and pedlblke movements 5. AUows for more orderly flow of bailie for ell directions 6. Improves signal display 7. Improves crosswalk alignment 8. Separate left and through lanes 9. TWO crosswalks to cross Oregon ExpnIssway Cons 1.Left tum or through traffic queue may occasionafty exceed the short tum-pockets on BIyant and block traffIC 2. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 f8eI on both sides of Bryant!2!:!!!!. of Oregon Expressway Pros , 1. Enhanced pedestrian crossing wICh countdown signals 2. Vehicular movements from one dIracIIon of Bryant are served nrst followed by movements from other directions on Bryant 3. Eliminates connlcts between left turners and opposing left and through movements 4. Enmlnates conflicts between left tum bailie and ped/bIce movements 5. Allows for mora orderly flow of traIIic for al dlrecllons 6. Improves signal dtsplay 7. Improves crosswalk alignment B. Enhanced bicycle detection and timing for Bryant on southbound 9. Minimizes queuing on Bryant (exl&ling shori tum-pockets) Cons 1.One crosswalk to cross OIl!gOll Expressway (two crosswalk option is not recommended as II will cause long wall time to cross Oregon Expressway) 2. Left and through movements wD/ share the same lane on Bryant 3. Parking to be prohibited for about 75 feet on both sides of Bryant south of Oregon Expressway GRAPHIC SCALE t--LJ--i i (.na) SIIIaIII_.eo a. )( )( .." .. ' ::: ~ " ~~:~::,:j~J~~::[=~~---- PROHIBit :" .. PARKING ' TO CROSSWALK' . :~;'t' : ..... ".'. ;.~".:?"::' Alternative 2 (For DiscDssionOnly) Oregon Expressway and Bryant Street r::J=~ ::=,... ---.. ---------------------a.., -----------.--------.----~-:o:-,----------;:;-: .. ~ OR~GON PROHIBIT PARKING TO CROSSWALK ;. /' :~ , ... __ i.. .. __ ~ ________ ;,. ___ ~_ ... ___ , __________ ._. _______ ~ __ .. _. ·~d+·~o!'4:;,~------------------------------·----------- 'PROHIBIT PARKING TO C~O~.SWI\LK Alternative 3 (Theoretical Example for Demonstration Only) County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Dept. Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Pros 1:""Enhanced pedestrian crossing with countdown signals 2. Vehicular movements from one direction of BIyant are selVed first followed by movements from other directions on Bryant 3. EHminates conflicts between left tumers and opposing left and through movements 4. Eliminates conflicts between left tum traIIic and pedlbike movements 5; Allows for more orderly flow of traffic for all directions 6. Improves signal display 7. Improves crosswalk afignment 8. Enhanced bicycle detection and timing for Bryant an southbound 9. Minimizes Queuing on Bryant (existing short tum-pockets) 10. Efiminates conflicts with frontage road for aU modes of traffic Cons 1.R"equires closure of frontage road 2. One crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway 3. Parking to be prohibited on all sides of B!yant for 75 feet 4. One crosswalk to cross Oregon Expressway (two crosswalk option Is not recommended as H will cause long wait time to cross Oregon Expressway) GRAPIUC SCALE t... -tJ--1 ( ....... , & 1aaIt.-40 lL Oregon Expressway and Bryant Street a=~=-_& Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis County of Santa Clara: Oregon Expressway Improvement Project Intersection Level of Service Summary (Including Alternatives No Longer Considered) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Scenario Aver~ge Volume to Average Volume to Intersection Capacity LOS Intersection Capacity LOS Delay (sec) (vIc) Delay (sec) (vIc)· Oregon Expressway Existing 17.5 0.68 B 19.2 0.80 B at W. Bayshore Alternative 1 17.5 0.68 B 18.8 0.77 B Road Existing 17.4 0.68 B 18.6 0.53 B Oregon Expressway Alternative 1 21.8 0.68 C 21.2 0.51 C at Greer Road Alternative 2 18.6 0.66 B 20.4 0.53 C Existing 28.3 0.72 C 20.8 0.58 C Oregon Expressway Alternative 1 26.9 0.70 C 26.1 0.55 C at Louis Road Alternative 2 27.0 0.71 C 26.9 0.60 C Existing 64.0 0.95 E 61.8 0.82 E Oregon Expressway Alternative 1 45.7 0.85 D 43.2 0.74 D atMiddlefield Road Alternative 2 46.2 0.85 D 45.0 0.72 D Oregon Expressway Existing 15.4 0.67 B 17.2 0.54 B at Cowper Street Alternative 1 15.1 0.64 B 18.2 0.61 B Existing 20.3 0.73 C 19.4 0.63 B Oregon Expressway Alternative 1 21.0 0.71 C 20.3 0.61 C at Bryant Street Alternative 2 22.3 0.69 C I 21.1 0.60 C Existing AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:06:26 Page 3-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Se+vice Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ****w*************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Oregon Expressway & W. Bayshore Road· ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 51 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.678 17.5 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 14 10 o Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 0 190 0 0 0 0 1376 91 197 1446 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 0 190 0 0 0 0 1376 91 197 1446 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 55 0 216 0 0 0 0 1480 98 205 1506 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 a a a 0 a a a a 0 Reduced Vol: 55 0 216 a a a 0 1480 98 205 1506 a PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 a 216 a a a a 1480 98 205 1506 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1862 0 1666 0.0 0 0 3724 1665 1862 3724 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.06 0.11 0.40 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.1~ Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.00 0.68 Delay/Veh: 50.7 0.0 62.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.7 0.0 62.1 LOS by Move: D A E HCM2kAvgQ: 52 a 255 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a **** 0.59 0.68 13.8 1.00 13.8 B 427 0.78 0.08 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A 2 **** 0.16 0.68 65.2 1.00 65.2 E 247 0.75 0.54 8.2 1.00 8.2 A 377 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:06:26 Page 4-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ****~*************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4. a sec) 52 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.680 17.4 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R -------------------------- 1---------------1 1------'-------'--1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: a 0 1! a 0 a a 1! a 0 1 a 2 0 1 1 a 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 i.oO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 ------------1---------------1 I--~------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.80 0.81 0.79 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.81 Lanes: 0.19 0.31 0.50 0.36 0.27 0.37 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 307 508 783 452 335 444 1862 3724 1609 1862 3724 1619 ------------1---------------1 \---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.150.15 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.02 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 0.21 0.62 57.8 1.00 57.8 E 232 0.21 0.62 57.8 1.00 57.8 E 233 0.21 0.62 57.8 1. 00 57.8 E 229 0.21 0.72 65.4 1. 00 65.4 E 233 **** 0.21 0.72 65.4 1.00 65.4 E 233 0.21 0.72 65.4 1. 00 65.4 E 229 **** 0.09 0.29 64.3 1.00 64.3 E 57 0.59 0.65 12.9 1. 00 12.9 B 391 0.59 0.03 7.6 1.00 7.6 A 7 0.14 0.14 56.4 1.00 56.4 E 35 **** 0.64 0.72 9.6 1.00 9.6 A 424 0.64 0.03 4.6 1. 00 4.6 A 5 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:06:26 Page 5-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 57 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.716 28.3 C ******:************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.80 Lanes: 0.18 0.37 0.45 0.28 0.48 0.24 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 273 574 685 362 621 306 1862 3724 1623 1862 3724 1598 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.34 0.03 0.04 0.42 0.04 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.73 Delay/Veh: 52.2 52.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 52.2 52.2 LOS by Move: D D HCM2kAvgQ: 375 376 0.30 0.73 52.2 1.00 52.2 D 369 0.30 0.78 57.0 1.00 57.0 E 359 **** 0.30 0.78 57.0 1.00 57.0 E 359 0.30 0.78 57.0 1.00 57.0 E 357 **** 0.09 0.16 63.0 1.00 63.0 E 31 0.50 0.68 23.0 1.00 23.0 C 468 0.50 0.07 15.2 1.00 15.2 B 23 0.14 0.27 58.4 1.00 58.4 E 70 **** 0.54 0.78 20.9 1.00 20.9 C 622 0.54 0.07 11.4 1.00 11.4 B 20 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:06:26 Page 6-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ****~***********~*************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 180 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.951 64.0 E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl OVI Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.86 0.86 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.80 Lanes: 0.66 0.88 0.46 0.28 1.21 0.51 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1134 1549 827 477 2079 852 1862 3724 1605 1862 3724 1592 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.10 0.41 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.98 0.98 Delay/Veh: 82.0 82.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 82.0 82.0 LOS by Move: F F HCM2kAvgQ: 592 609 0.24 0.98 82.0 1.00 82.0 F 617 0.17 0.98 93.0 1. 00 93.0 F 453 0.17 0.98 93.0 1.00 93.0 F 453 **** 0.17 0.98 93.0 1.00 93.0 F 437 **** 0.09 0.73 81.2 1. 00 81.2 F 181 0.38 0.72 41.5 1. 00 41.5 D 530 0.61 0.05 11.5 1.00 11.5 B 23 0.14 0.72 71.5 1.00 71.5 E 231 **** 0.42 0.98 59.7 1.00 59.7 E 1043 0.59 0.05 13.0 1. 00 13.0 B 23 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIivlLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:06:26 Page 7-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Oregon Expressway & Cowper Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 50 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.668 15.4 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I-------~-------I 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Pr~tected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 32 21 28 38 29 27 1195 24 20 1679 13 Growth Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 32 21 28 38 29 27 1195 24 20 1679 13 User Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.59 0.25 0.16 0.29 0.40 0.31 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 750 320 210 483 655 500 1862 3724 1615 1862 3692 29 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.72 Delay/Veh: 66.1 66.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 66.1 66.1 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 231 231 0.20 0.72 66.1 1.00 66.1 E 231 0.20 0.35 52.4 1.00 52.4 D 113 0.20 0.35 52.4 1.00 52.4 D 113 0.20 0.35 52.4 1.00 52.4 D 112 **** 0.09 0.17 63.1 1.00 63.1 E 32 0.59 0.60 12.5 1.00 12.5 B 328 0.59 0.03 8.0 1.00 8.0 A 7 0.16 0.07 54.0 1.00 54.0 D 19 **** 0.65 0.72 8.8 1.00 8.8 A 406 0.65 0.72 8.8 1.00 8.8 A 406 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:06:26 Page 8-1 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.733 20.3 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T -~i R L T R L T R L -T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: a a 1! a a a a 1! a 0 1 0 1 1 a 1 a 1 1 a ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 Reduct Vol: a a a 0 0 0 a a a a a a Reduced Vol: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.60 0.61 0.59 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.55 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.07 0.66 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 664 266 275 418 102 1006 1862 3641 71 1862 3671 45 ------------I-----~---------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-----------~---I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.79 0.79 Delay/Veh: 71.7 71.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.7 71.7 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 258 259 0.21 0.79 71.7 1. 00 71.7 E 254 0.21 0.46 53.4 1. 00 53.4 D 155 0.21 0.46 53.4 1.00 53.4 D 156 0.21 0.46 53.4 1. 00 53.4 D 153 **** 0.09 0.26 64. a 1. 00 64.0 E 52 0.59 0.63 20.9 1.00 20.9 C 534 0.59 0.63 20.9 1.00 20.9 C 534 0.15 0.03 54.7 1.00 -54.7 D 8 **** 0.64 0.79 10.8 1.00 10.8 B 537 0.64 0.79 10.8 1.00 10.8 B 537 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 15:55:49 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Existing PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Oregon Expressway & W. Bayshore Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 90 9 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 66 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.799 19.2 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 /---------------1 1---------------1 /---------------1 Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 14 10 o Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 158 0 80 0 0 0 0 1127 89 128 1055 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 158 0 80 0 0 0 0 1127 89 128 1055 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00,1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 184 0 93 0 0 0 0 1225 97 135 1111 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 184 0 93 0 0 0 0 1225 97 135 1111 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 184 0 93 0 0 0 0 1225 97 135 1111 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1862 0 1666 0 0 0 0 2234 1665 1862 3724 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I~--------------I Capacity Analysis Mddule: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:55 0.06 0.07 0.30 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.63 0.00 Delay/Veh: 40.2 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.2 0.0 LOS by Move: D A HCM2kAvgQ: 146 0 0.31 0.18 22.8 1.00 22.8 C 48 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o **** 0.59 0.93 28.7 1.00 28.7 C 529 0.74 0.08 3.1 1.00 3.1 A 19 **** 0.16 0.47 35.8 1. 00 35.8 D 97 0.74 0.40 4.3 1.00 4.3 A 150 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing PM Thu sep 11, 2008 15:55:49 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Existing PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 4,..1 ***********************************************~******************************** Intersection t2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 90 9 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 47 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.526 18.6 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 0 I! 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 User Adj: 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 Lanes: 0.16 0.47 0.37 0.40 0.44 0.16 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 279 823 646 559 616 228 1862 3724 1621 1862 3724 1620 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.35 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.08 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.52 Delay/Veh: 35.2 35.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.2 35.2 LOS by Move: D D HCM2kAvgQ: 117 117 0.18 0.52 35.2 1.00 35.2 D 116 **** 0.18 0.61 38.7 1. 00 38.7 D 123 0.18 0.61 38.7 1.00 38.7 D 123 0.18 0.61 38.7 1. 00 38.7 D 123 0.24 0.37 28.9 1. 00 28.9 C 101 **** 0.57 0.61 13.4 1. 00 13.4 B 322 0.57 0.03 8.5 1.00 8.5 A 8 **** 0.16 0.11 32.8 1.00 32.8 C 19 0.48 0.64 18.3 1.00 18.3 B 330 0.48 0.16 13.2 1. 00 13.2 B 49 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 15:55:50 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Existing PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 5-1 *************************************************************************.****** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 90 9 (Y+R-4. 0 sec) 47 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.578 20.8 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 io 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I--------------~I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 200b 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 Lanes: 0.19 0.53 0.28 0.20 0.65 0.15 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 316 893 469 329 1064 252 1862 3724 1617 1862 3724 1618 ------------I-------~--~-~--I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.35 0.02 0.03 0.27 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.21 Volume/Cap: 0.65 0.65 Delay/Veh: 36.9 36.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 36.9 36.9 LOS by Move: D D HCM2kAvgQ: 176 176 0.21 0.65 36.9 1.00 36.9 D 175 0.21 0.54 33.3 1. 00 33.3 C 132 0.21 0.54 33.3 1.00 33.3 C 132 0.21 0.54 33.3 1.00 33.3 C 132 0.25 0.25 27.3 1.00 27.3 C 66 **** 0.53 0.65 15.9 1.00 15.9 B 352 0.53 0.05 10.1 1.00 10.1 B 13 **** 0.16 0.21 33.5 1.00 33.5 C 40 0.44 0.62 20.2 1.00 20.2 C 300 0.44 0.06 14.5 1. 00 14.5 B 16 *********************************************************k********************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 15:55:50 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Existing PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 6-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 180 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.824 Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 61.8 Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase P~otected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.87 0.90 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.80 Lanes: 0.53 1.21 0.26 0.16 1.46 0.38 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 926 2182 471 280 2539 636 1862 3724 1625 1862 3724 1606 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.10 0.25 0.05 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.23 0.23 0.82 0.82 73.2 73.2 1.00 1.00 73.2 73.2 E E 490 504 0.23 0.82 73.2 1.00 73.2 E 512 **** 0.21 0.21 0.82 0.82 75.3 75.3 1.00 1.00 75.3 75.3 E E 466 466 0.21 0.82 75.3 1.00 75.3 E 448 **** 0.12 0.38 0.66 0.82 82.8 54.9 1.00 1.00 82.8 54.9 F D 221 781 0.38 0.22 38.5 1.00 38.5 D 123 **** 0.12 0.37 0.82 0.66 98.6 48.1 1.00 1.00 98.6 48.1 F D 298 554 0.37 0.12 37.0 1.00 37.0 D 63 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SANRAMON Existing PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 15:55:50 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Existing PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 7-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection *5 Oregon Expressway & Cowper Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 90 9 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 47 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.544 17.2 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 45 16 11 58 32 25 1452 57 27 1095 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 45 16 11 58 32 25 1452 57 27 1095 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27.1596 63 28 1153 23 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: \ 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment': 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanei: 0.54 0.34 0.12 0.11 0.57 0.32 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1069 687 244 218 1149 634 2000 4000 2000 2000 3921 79 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.40 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.16 Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.49 Delay/Veh: 35.9 35.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.9 35.9 LOS by Move: D D HCM2kAvgQ: 110 110 0.16 0.49 35.9 1.00 35.9 D 110 **** 0.16 0.49 36.0 1.00 36.0 D 111 0.16 0.49 36.0 1.00 36.0 D 111 0.16 0.49 36.0 1.00 36.0 D 111 0.26 0.05 25.2 1.00 25.2 C 14 **** 0.59 0.68 13.5 1.00 13.5 B 391 0.59 0.05 7.9 1.00 7.9 A 18 **** 0.16 0.09 32.7 1.00 32.7 C 18 0.49 0.60 17.3 1.00 17.3 B 304 0.49 0.60 17.3 1.00 17.3 B 304 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Existing PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 15:55:50 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Existing PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 8-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 90 9 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 48 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.633 19.4 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------J---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 15 10 14 15 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: a a 1! a a a a 11 a a 1 a 1 1 a 1 a 1 1 a ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: .48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 ·39 1461 36 Reduct Vol: a a a a a a a a a a a a Reduced Vol: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.71 0.72 0.70 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.46 0.26 0.28 0.33 0.11 0.56 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 655 368 396 512 175 821 1862 3634 79 1862 3619 90 ------------\---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.59 Delay/Veh: ,38.7 38.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 38.7 38.7 LOS by Move: D D HCM2kAvgQ: 115 115 0.17 0.59 38.7 1. 00 38.7 D 113 0.17 0.52 36.3 1.00 36.3 D 102 0.17 0.52 36.3 1. 00 36.3 D 103 0.17 0.52 36.3 1. 00 36.3 D 100 0.20 0.15 29.6 1.00 29.6 C 33 **** 0.58 0.78 16.5 1.00 16.5 B 502 0.58 0.78 16.5 1.00 16.5 B 502 **** 0.16 0.13 33.0 1.00 33.0 C 25 0.53 0.76 18.5 1.00 18.5 B 462 0.53 0.76 18.5 1.00 18.5 B 462 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 AM Thu Sep II, 2008 16:07:13 . Oregon Expressway Improvement study Alternative 1 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Oregon Expressway & W. Bayshore Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 51 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.678 17.5 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R --------------------------- 1---------------1 I------~--------I 1---------------1 Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 14 10 o Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 0 190 0 0 0 0 1376 91 197 1446 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 0 190 0 0 0 0 1376 91 197 1446 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 55 0 216 0 0 0 0 1480 98 205 1506 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 0 216 0 0 0 0 1480 98 205 1506 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 55 0 216 0 0 0 0 1480 98 205 1506 0 ------------1---------------1 I--------~------I 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1862 0 1666 0 0 0 0 3724 1665 1862 3724 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.00 Q.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.06 0.11 0.40 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.19 0.00 0.19 Volume/Cap: 0.15 0.00 0.68 Delay/Veh: 50.7 0.0 62.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 50.7 0.0 62.1 LOS by Move: D A E HCM2kAvgQ: 52 0 255 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0 .. 0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A o 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o **** 0.59 0.68 13.8 1.00 13.8 B 427 0.78 0.08 0.0 1.00 0.0 A 2 **** 0.16 0.68 65.2 1.00 65.2 E 247 0.75 0.54 8.2 1.00 8.2 A 377 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A o ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:13 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 4-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection *2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.675. 21. 8 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1--------------- 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl OVl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse! 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 --~---------I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.93 0.90 0.85 0.93 0.93 0.73 0.93 0.93 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 0.39 0.61 1.00 0.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 688 1061 1862 749 993 1862 3724 1462 1862 3724 1529 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.02 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.76 58.8 78.1 1. 00 1. 00 58.8 78.1 E E 41 228 0.12 0.76 78.1 1.00 78.1 E 222 **** 0.09 0.09 0.39 0.74 65.4 83.1 1.00 1.00 65.4 83.1 E F 81 172 0.09 0.74 83.1 1. 00 83.1 F 166 **** 0.09 0.57 0.29 0.68 64.3 15.9 1.00 1.00 64.3 15.9 E B 57 451 0.69 0.03 2.1 1. 00 2.1 A 3 **** 0.14 0.61 0.14 0.76 57.3 13.3 1.00 1.00 57.3 13.3 E B 36 538 0.70 0.03 1.7 1.00 1.7 A 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9~0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:13 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations ~ethod (Base Volume Alternative) Page 5-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 63 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.696 26.9 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ov1 Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.90 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.71 Lanes: 1.00 0.44 0.56 1.00 0.67 0.33 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 801 954 1862 1241 610 1862 3724 1575 1862 3724 1414 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.04 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 0.13 0.25 59.3 1.00 59.3 E 65 **** 0.20 0.79 68.4 1. 00 68.4 E 355 0.20 0.79 68.4 1. 00 68.4 E 341 **** 0.09 0.49 66.8 1. 00 66.8 E 107 0.16 0.72 67.6 1.00 67.6 E 272 0.16 0.72 67.6 1. 00 67.6 E 267 **** 0.09 0.16 58.7 1.00 58.7 E 30 0.49 0.69 11.7 1.00 11.7 B 337 0.62 0.06 0.0 1.00 0.0 A 2 0.14 0.27 58.7 1.00 58.7 E 71 **** 0.53 0.79 22.4 1.00 22.4 C 652 0.63 0.07 5.6 1. 00 5.6 A 12 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:13 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 6-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ***********************************************"********************************* Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 104 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.849 45.7 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ese: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.93 0~80 0.93 0.93 0.80 Lanes: 1.00 1.29 0.71 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 2129 1136 1676 2352 964 1862 3724 1607 1862 3724 1594 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.10 0.41 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.23 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.74 Delay/Veh: 81.1 58.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 81.1 58.2 LOS by Move: F E HCM2kAvgQ: 355 342 0.23 0.74 58.2 1.00 58.2 E 335 0.13 0.38 61.3 1.00 61.3 E 90 **** 0.17 0.86 73.4 1.00 73.4 E 350 0.17 0.86 73.4 1. 00 73.4 E 349 **** 0.09 0.73 81.2 1. 00 81.2 F 179 0.42 0.65 31.2 1. 00 31.2 C 426 0.60 0.05 7.1 1.00 7.1 A 12 0.15 0.65 65.2 1.00 65.2 E 213 **** 0.48 0.86 32.6 1.00 32.6 C 796 0.60 0.05 7.0 1.00 7.0 A 12 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:13 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 7-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection *5 Oregon Expressway & Cowper Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.636 15.1 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume· Module: Base Vol: 75 32 21 28 38 29 27 1195 24 20 1679 13 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 32 21 28 38 29 27 1195 24 20 1679 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.nO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 46 30 33 45 34 29 1299 26 21 1731 13 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 0.60 0.40 1.00 0.56 0.44 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1862 1109 728 1862 1031 787 1862 3724 1505 1862 3692 29 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.47 0.47 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.07 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.62 Delay/Veh: 71.9 77.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.9 77.4 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 142 110 0.07 0.62 77.4 1.00 77.4 E 109 0.09 0.19 63.3 1. 00 63.3 E 37 **** 0.07 0.65 80.1 1.00 80.1 F 117 0.07 0.65 80.1 1.00 80.1 F 116 **** 0.09 0.17 63.1 1. 00 63.1 E 32 0.60 0.58 11.0 1.00 11. 0 B 301 0.69 0.03 2.1 1.00 2.1 A 3 0.16 0.07 53.6 1.00 53.6 D 19 **** 0.67 0.70 6.9 1.00 6.9 A 341 0.67 0.70 6.9 1.00 6.9 A 340 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:13 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 8-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 65 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.707 21.0 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R -----~------I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.91 0.84 0.93 0.85 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.09 0.91 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1862 857 886 1862 150 1481 1862 3641 71 1862 3671 45 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.07 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.68 Delay/Veh: 71.9 81.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 71.9 81.5 LOS by Move: E F HCM2kAvgQ: 142 133 0.07 0.68 81.5 1. 00 81. 5 F 125 0.10 0.21 62.2 1.00 62.2 E 44 **** 0.08 0.78 91.2 1.00 91.2 F 167 0.08 0.78 91.2 1. 00 91.2 F 162 **** 0.09 0.26 64.0 1. 00 64.0 E 52 0.59 0.62 20.2 1.00 20.2 C 525 0.59 0.62 20.2 1.00 20.2 C 524 0.15 0.03 54.5 1.00 54.5 D 8 **** 0.65 0.78 9.8 1.00 9.8 A 497 0.65 0.78 9.8 1. 00 9.8 A 497 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:48 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Oregon Expressway & W. Bayshore Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 9 (Y+R=4. a sec) 66 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.765 18.8 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Permitted Permitted Protected Rights: Ovl Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 14 a 10 a a a a 10 10 14 10 a Lanes: 1 a a a 1 a a a a a a a 2 0 1 1 a 2 a a ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 158 a 80 a a a a 1127 89 128 1055 a Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 158 a 80 a a a a 1127 89 128 1055 a User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 184 a 93 a a a a 1225 97 135 1111 a Reduct Vol: a a a a a a a a a a a a Reduced Vol: 184 a 93 a a a a 1225 97 135 1111 a PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVo1ume: 184 a 93 a a a a 1225 97 135 1111 a ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.83 0.93 0.93 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1862 a 1666 a a a a 2234 1665 1862 3724 a ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.06 0.07 0.30 0.00 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.77 0.00 Delay/Veh: 76.8 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 76.8 0.0 LOS by Move: E A HCM2kAvgQ: 246 a 0.22 0.25 48.2 1.00 48.2 D 88 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a **** 0.72 0.77 15.6 1.00 15.6 B 494 0.85 0.07 1.9 1.00 1.9 A 18 **** 0.09 0.76 84.2 1. 00 84.2 F 194 0.81 0.37 3.9 1.00 3.9 A 178 0.00 0.00 0.0 1.00 0.0 A a ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9. 0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, S"AN RAMON Alternative 1 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:48 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation' Report Page 4-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection t2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.512 21.2 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound. West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 /---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 ------------1---------------/ /---------------/ 1---------------/ /---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 0.56 0.44 1.00 0.73 0.27 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 1019 800 1862 1370 507 1962 3724 1551 1862 3724 1558 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.35 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.08 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.58 57.8 65.0 1. 00 1. 00 57.8 65.0 E E 26 164 0.13 0.58 65.0 1.00 65.0 E 162 **** 0.09 0.09 0.35 0.53 64.9 67.9 1.00 1.00 64.9 67.9 E E 72 116 0.09 0.53 67.9 1. 00 67.9 E 116 **** 0.16 0.60 0.55 0.58 60.1 10.5 1.00 1.00 60.1 10.5 E B 182 291 0.73 0.02 0.5 1. 00 0.5 A 1 **** 0.09 0.54 0.18 0.58 63.2 16.9 1. 00 1.00 63.2 16.9 E B 34 342 0.63 0.13 5.6 1.00 5.6 A 27 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:48 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 5-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) _ **********~********************************************************************* Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.548 26.1 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 I------------~--I 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include OVI ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 0.65 0.35 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1862 1212 637 1862 1537 364 1862 3724 1531 1862 3724 1556 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.27 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.61 Delay/Veh: 57.1 61.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 57.1 61.8 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 45 219 0.17 0.61 61.8 1.00 61. 8 E 217 **** 0.09 0.22 63.5 1.00 63.5 E 43 0.12 0.67 70.6 1.00 70.6 E 192 0.12 0.67 70.6 1.00 70.6 E 191 0.17 0.37 56.1 1. 00 56.1 E 116 **** 0.57 0.61 14.5 1. 00 14.5 B 363 0.71 0.04 1.5 1.00 1.5 A 3 **** 0.09 0.35 65.0 1. 00 65.0 E 71 0.49 0.56 21.0 1.00 21.0 C 333 0.59 0.05 8.0 1.00 8.0 A 11 ******************************************************************************** . Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:48 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 6-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 70 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.735 43.2 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 a 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.81 Lanes: 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.60 0.40 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 2772 599 1676 2689 674 1862 3724 1629 1862 3724 1614 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.10 0.25 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.22 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.66 Delay/Veh: 73.3 55.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.3 55.3 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 226 290 0.22 0.66 55.3 1.00 55.3 E 286 0.14 0.21 57.3 1.00 57.3 E 51 **** 0.22 0.73 57.8 1.00 57.8 E 342 0.22 0.73 57.8 1. 00 57.8 E 339 0.15 0.53 60.6 1. 00 60.6 E 166 **** 0.42 0.73 33.5 1. 00 33.5 C 535 0.56 0.15 10.5 1.00 10.5 B 45 **** 0.13 0.73 73.1 1.00 73.1 E 236 0.40 0.62 32.3 1.00 32.3 C 389 0.55 0.08 11.2 1.00 11.2 B 24 *********************************************************~********************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:48 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 7-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Oregon Expressway & Cowper Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. a sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.610 18.2 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------I~--------------I 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 a a 1 a 1 a a 1 a 1 a 2 a 1 1 a 1 1 a ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 70 45 16 11 58 32 25 1452 57 27 1095 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 70 45 16 11 58 32 25 1452 57 27 1095 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 Reduct Vol: a a a a a a a a a a a a Reduced Vol: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.·00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 81 52 19 17 88 48 27 1596 63 28 1153 23 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 0.74 0.26 1.00 0.64 0.36 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1862 1388 493 1862 1194 659 1862 3724 1510 1862 3640 73 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.43 0.04 0.02 0.32 0.32 Crit Move~: **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.08 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.45 Delay/Veh: 66.5 67.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 66.5 67.5 LOS by Move: E HCM2kAvgQ: 101 E 90 0.08 0.45 67.5 1.00 67.5 E 89 0.12 0.08 59.1 1.00 59.1 E 18 **** 0.11 0.68 74.0 1.00 74.0 E 181 0.11 0.68 74.0 1.00 74.0 E 181 0.16 0.09 53.4 1.00 53.4 D 25 **** 0.63 0.68 10.2 1. 00 10.2 B 390 0.72 0.06 1.1 1. 00 1.1 A 4 **** 0.09 0.16 63.1 1.00 63.1 E 31 0.56 0.57 14.9 1.00 14.9 B 322 0.67 0.47 4.4 1. 00 4.4 A 137 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 1 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 16:07:48 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 1 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 8-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection *6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Av~rage Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.609 20.3 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Move men t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------/ /---------------1 /---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.93 0.90 0.84 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 1.00 0.46 0.54 1.00 0.16 0.84 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1862 836 898 1862 280 1315 1862 3634 79 1862 3619 90 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.09 0.37 65.2 1.00 65.2 E 78 0.07 0.61 75.8 1. 00 75.8 E 112 0.07 0.61 75.8 1. 00 75.8 E 105 0.10 0.24 62.8 1. 00 62.8 E 51 **** 0.08 0.69 82.1 1.00 82.1 F 137 0.08 0.69 82.1 1. 00 82.1 F 128 0.14 0.21 57.5 1. 00 57.5 E 58 0.65 0.69 17.2 1. 00 17.2 B 630 0.65 0.69 17.2 1.00 17.2 B 628 **** 0.09 0.22 63.6 1.00 63.6 E 43 0.61 0.67 11. 6 1.00 11. 6 B 387 0.61 0.67 11. 6 1.00 11. 6 B 386 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:29:10 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 3-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 64 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.659 18.6 B ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------/ 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------/ I-------------~-I 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 29 48 74 58 43 57 44 1267 23 32 1536 27 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74. 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 39 65 100 67 50 66 50 1440 26 36 1726 30 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.960.96 .0.79 0.95 0.95 0.76 0.93 0.93 0.73 0.93 0.93 0.76 Lanes: 0.38 0.62 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 724 1199 1586 1094 811 1520 1862 3724 1462 1862 3724 1529 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.02 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.09 0.58 69.9 1. 00 69.9 E 134 0.09 0.58 69.9 1.00 69.9 E 134 0.09 0.68 77.6 1.00 77.6 E 142 **** 0.09 0.66 74.6 1.00 74.6 E 158 0.09 0.66 74.6 1.00 74.6 E 158 0.09 0.47 66.9 1. 00 66.9 E 86 **** 0.09 0.29 64.3 1.00 64.3 E 57 0.59 0.65 12.9 1.00 12.9 B 392 0.68 0.03 2.5 1.00 2.5 A 3 0.14 0.14 56.5 1.00 56.5 E 35 **** 0.64 0.72 9.6 1. 00 9.6 A 426 0.73 0.03 0.5 1.00 0.5 A 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:29:10 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 4-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 66 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.713 27.0 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ---------~--I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: a 1 a a 1 a 1 a a 1 1 a 2 0 1 1 a 2 a 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 47 99 118 71 122 60 25 1113 50 61 1396 52 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 Reduct Vol: a a a a a a a a a a a a Reduced Vol: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 127 151 86 147 72 28 1251 56 69 1569 58 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.96 0.96 0.76 0.96 0.96 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.71 Lanes: 0.32 0~68 1.00 0.37 0.63 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 621 1308 1530 708 1217 1567 1862 3724 1575 1862 3724 1414 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.04 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: 0.13 0.13 0.76 0.76 76.2 76.2 1.00 1.00 76.2 76.2 E E 248 248 **** 0.13 0.78 80.9 1.00 80.9 F 213 **** 0.16 0.16 0.78 0.78 72.7 72.7 1.00 1.00 72.7 72.7 E E 298 298 0.16 0.30 56.7 1. 00 56.7 E 77 **** 0.09 0.50 0.16 0.67 58.7 10.6 1.00 1.00 58.7 10.6 E B 30 313 0.63 0.06 0.0 1. 00 0.0 A 2 **** 0.14 0.54 0.27 0.78 58.4 20.7 1. 00 1. 00 58.4 20.7 E C 70 619 0.70 0.06 1.9 1.00 1.9 A 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:29:10 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oregon Expressway Improvement study Alternative 2 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 104 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.849 46.2 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East, Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-----------~---I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 240 328 175 75 327 134 120 950 48 166 1406 46 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.ob 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 261 357 190 79 344 141 128 1011 51 180 1528 50 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------/ 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.91 0.72 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.77 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1~00 1.00 1.42 0.58 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 1829 1442 1676 2352 964 1862 3724 1607 1862 3724 1530 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-----------~---I Capacity AnalYsis Modu+e: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.27 0.03 0.10 0.41 0.03 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.18 0.24 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.82 Delay/Veh: 81.1 66.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 81.1 66.2 LOS by Move: F E HCM2kAvgQ: 355 437 0.24 0.56 52.3 1. 00 52.3 D 204 0.11 0.42 63.3 1.00 63.3 E 93 **** 0.17 0.86 73.4 1.00 73.4 E 350 0.17 0.86 73.4 1.00 73.4 E 349 **** 0.09 0.73 81.2 1.00 81.2 F 179 0.42 0.65 31.2 1.00 31.2 C 426 0.60 0.05 7.1 1.00 7.1 A 12 0.15 0.65 65.2 1. 00 65.2 E 213 **** 0.48 0.86 32.6 1.00 32.6 C 796 0.59 0.06 7.8 1.00 7.8 A 13 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 AM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:29:10 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 AM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base,Volume Alternative) Page 6-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 64 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.689 22.3 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: 'Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 30 31 37 9 89 41 1224 24 8 1776 22 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 107 43 44 40 10 96 45 1345 26 8 1850 23 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.72 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.71 0.29 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.98 0.02 Final Sat.: 1352 541 1434 1515 369 1591 1862 3641 71 1862 3671 45 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.50 0.50 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.10 0.80 86.5 1.00 86.5 F 216 0.10 0.80 86.5 1.00 86.5 F 216 0.10 0.31 64.0 1. 00 64.0 E 54 **** 0.09 0.28 64.2 1.00 64.2 E 58 0.09 0.28 64.2 1.00 64.2 E 58 0.09 0.64 75.0 1. 00 75.0 E 133 **** 0.09 0.58 0.26 0.64 64.0 21.6 1.00 1.00 64.0 21. 6 E C 52 543 0.58 0.64 21.6 1.00 21.6 C 541 0.15 0.03 54.9 1.00 54.9 D 8 **** 0.63 0.80 11.8 1.00 11.8 B 573 0.63 0.80 11.8 1. 00 11.8 B 573 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:30:24 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 3-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection *2 Oregon Expressway & Greer Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. 0 sec) 64 Critical Vol. /Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.526 20.4 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 \---------------\ Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 \---------------1 \---------------1 1---------------\ Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 65 51 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 6551 49 54 20 149 1168 23 28 1065 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 76 59 60 67 25 166 1298 26 30 1158 126 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 \---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.81 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: ,0.25 0.75 1.00 0.48 0.52 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 490 1447 1611 911 1004 1618 1862 3724 1551 1862 3724 1558 ------------1---------------\ 1---------------1 \---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.35 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.08 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.09 0.56 69.0 1. 00 69.0 E 129 0.09 0.56 69.0 1. 00 69.0 E 129 0.09 0.39 65.7 1.00 65.7 E 74 **** 0.12 0.57 65.9 1.00 65.9 E 155 0.12 0.57 65.9 1.00 65.9 E 155 0.12 0.13 59.6 1. 00 59.6 E 27 0.16 0.54 59.6 1. 00 59.6 E 181 **** 0.62 0.57 9.4 1.00 9.4 A 270 0.71 0.02 1.4 1. 00 1.4 A 2 **** 0.09 0.18 63.2 1.00 63.2 E 34 0.55 0.57 15.9 1.00 15.9 B 328 0.66 0.12 3.7 1.00 3.7 A 21 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:30:24 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report Page 4-1 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 Oregon Expressway & Louis Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 64 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.598 26.9 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: N9rth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-------------~-I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 116 61 30 97 23 110 1235 38 56 940 38 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 Reduct Vol: ·0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 44 123 65 38 121 29 116 1300 40 61 1022 41 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.97 0.97 0.80 0.97 0.97 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.77 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 0.26 0.74 1.00 0.24 0.76 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 505 1429 1597 457 1479 1614 1862 3724 1531 1862 3724 1556 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.06 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.27 0.03 Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: Volume/Cap: Delay/Veh: User DelAdj: AdjDel/Veh: LOS by Move: HCM2kAvgQ: **** 0.14 0.14 0.63 0.63 65.6 65.6 1.00 1.00 65.6 65.6 E E 202 202 0.14 0.29 58.8 1. 00 58.8 E 71 **** 0.13 0.63 66.6 1. 00 66.6 E 194 0.13 0.63 66.6 1. 00 66.6 E 194 0.13 0.14 58.0 1. 00 58.0 E 30 0.17 0.38 56.5 1. 00 56.5 E 117 **** 0.56 0.63 15.6 1.00 15.6 B 382 0.70 0.04 2.0 1.00 2.0 A 4 **** 0.09 0.49 0.35 0.56 65.0 21.9 1.00 1.00 65.0 21.9 E C 71 343 0.62 0.04 6.0 1.00 6.0 A 9 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:30:24 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 5-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Oregon Expressway & Middlefield Road ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4.0 sec) 67 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.717 45.0 D ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movemen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 165 389 84 44 399 100 144 1107 131 177 889 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.nO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 FinalVolume: 172 405 88 49 443 111 150 1153 136 184 926 73 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.84 0.91 0.70 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.93 0.93 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 0.40 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1676 1829 1409 1676 2689 674 1862 3724 1629 1862 3724 1569 ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.06 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.31 0.08 0.10 0.25 0.05 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.15 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.70 0.76 Delay/Veh: 69.2 54.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.2 54.9 LOS by Move: E D HCM2kAvgQ: 218 453 0.29 0.21 40.5 1.00 40.5 D 76 **** 0.09 0.31 64.7 1.00 64.7 E 59 0.24 0.70 55.0 1.00 55.0 E 329 0.24 0.70 55.0 1.00 55.0 E 326 0.15 0.55 61.9 1.00 61.9 E 169 **** 0.41 0.76 36.4 1.00 36.4 D 565 0.55 0.15 11.1 1.00 11.1 B 46 **** 0.13 0.76 76.3 1.00 76.3 E 243 0.39 0.64 38.1 1. 00 38.1 D 407 0.48 0.10 21.1 1. 00 21.1 C 31 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix '7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON Alternative 2 PM Thu Sep 11, 2008 18:30:24 Oregon Expressway Improvement Study Alternative 2 PM Peak Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Page 6-1 ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Oregon Expressway & Bryant street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): Loss Time (sec): Optimal Cycle: 150 12 (Y+R=4. a sec) 64 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): Average Delay (sec/veh): Level Of Service: 0.604 21.1 C ******************************************************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------11---------------1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 14 10 10 Lanes: a 1 a a 1 a 1 a a 1 1 a 1 1 a 1 a 1 1 a ------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 27 29 38 13 61 55 1620 35 37 1403 35 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.96 0.96 0.-96 PHF Volume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 Reduct Vol: a a a a a a a a a a a a Reduced Vol: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 65 36 39 45 15 72 56 1636 35 39 1461 36 ------------1---------------1 1---------------11---------------11---------------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.71 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 Lanes: 0.64 0.36 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.95 0.05 Final Sat.: 1216 684 1426 1408 482 1494 1862 3634 79 1862 3619 90 ------------1---------------1 I--------------~I 1---------------11---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.45 0.45 0.02 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** Green/Cycle: 0.09 0.09 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.57 Delay/Veh: 69.6 69.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 69.6 69.6 LOS by Move: E E HCM2kAvgQ: 131 131 0.09 0.29 64.6 1.00 64.6 E 48 **** 0.09 0.34 64.8 1.00 64.8 E 71 0.09 0.34 64.8 1.00 64.8 E 71 0.09 0.51 6'8. a 1. 00 68.0 E 95 0.14 0.22 57.9 1. 00 57.9 E 58 **** 0.64 0.70 18.7 1.00 18.7 B 657 0.64 0.70 18.7 1.00 18.7 B 654 **** 0.09 0.22 63.6 1.00 63.6 E 43 0.60 0.68 12.9 1.00 12.9 B 417 0.60 0.68 12.9 1.00 12.9 B 416 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the distance per lane in feet. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0415 (c) 2007 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KIMLEY-HORN, SAN RAMON